Monday, 19 January 2009

Ocean Beach Spews more

Two front page articles in two months. Probably another 4-5 years until a secondary sewage treatment plant is in operation. More and more people are falling ill with infections and sickness from raw sewage pumped from lawyers head. I have my fingers crossed that the 67 million is still available and enough to remedy this appalling situation once and for all. Definately a better monitoring system is needed.. Any suggestions?


Anonymous said...

Don't build the stadium

Anonymous said...

Raw sewerage isn't dumped from Lawyers Head; effluent is and the commissioning of the new outfall within the next few weeks should alleviate this problem to some extent. Totally different issue from the stadium.

Anonymous said...

No it does have something to do with the stadium, because if we don't spend all the money on building the stadium, we could use it for getting rid of the sewage problem

Anonymous said...

It has no more to do with the stadium than funding for any other Council project, e.g. Otago Settlers Museum redevelopment, Dunedin Centre redevelopment, Logan Park redevelopment, South Dunedin Public Library etc... All have provision in the LTCCP along with stage 2 for the Tahuna secondary plant.

nic on 20 January, 2009 19:41 said...

Sounds like you are in the know anon, I had heard that the funding for stage 2 was secure with the LTCCP, although the reporting in the Star last month would make people believe otherwise. I wonder how much of it is media hype?

wigga said...

The new outfall in the middle of the beach instead of off the headland will be worse than the current pipe due to currents.

the DCC enviroment officer saying the illnesses were not due to the sewerage is utter stupidity
so is going in the water at the city beaches when there is a north or east swell running

Perhaps time for swimmers and surfers to take some responsibility and think then look after themselves rather than being babysat by the dcc

2-3 years before secondary treatment comes online so some commonsense will be needed by beach goers for a while yet

or everyone can dig a hole and p00 in that for a few years to prove how much they really want to prevent pollution of our beaches!
Yep i didn't think you cared that much ;)

Anonymous said...

if its "only" effluent and not to be worried about Why is tomahawk beach water black and beach permanently closed? So much for clean green NZ when every local council pumps the poos in the ocean.

Anonymous said...

the biggest problem is the DCC has no idea why it happens, they don't understand that it is caused by swell direction rather than tides and wind (at least not directly by local wind) which means they won't understand why with a longer pipe, the beaches will still need to be closed, it's the same reason they aren't qualified to make a decision on the erosion issue at St Clair, they don't realise the impact swell direction has on sand retention and they won't listen to a bunch of surfers, instead they just charge forward with whatever will be most aesthetically pleasing to tourists

Anonymous said...

A number of surfers made submissions on this during the original planning process and have contacted the council since to explain the "mysteries" of why sewerage/ effluent ends up back on the beach at times. Despite these efforts the council "experts" still trot out the same mumbo-jumbo that it has something to do with about "weather patterns involving lows over the SI and unusual tides" indicating they just don't understand. Who better to listen to about beach water movement than those who spend the most hours on the surface and finely tuned into swell, near-shore currents? As indicated above the new outfall is closer to the main beaches than Lawyer's Head and will open the beach up to pollution in Southerly swell now as well as East. Also, why did the council opt for a 1.1 outfall when NIWA advice in other outfall proposals in the country was that 1.6 km is the minimum distance to avoid contamination of the shore waters?

nic on 23 January, 2009 20:40 said...

So if the council is not listening to submissions, and taking on board advice given through these, then:
Q- what is the point having a submission process?
A- to fulfill the requirements of the resource management act.
As far as I know there is no obligation to act upon any submission.. the council still makes the original decision they intended to make based upon their consultants recommendations.
Who employs the consultants? The council.
What happened with the redesign of the St Clair Sea Wall? so many submissions against the realignment/reclamation by the pool, one for.. so it went through.
What happened with the submission process with the erosion issue last year? They blatantly ignored suggestions, and when reporting on submissions made gross errors and misquotes... showing they just don't understand, and are not interested.


phoam surf blog Copyright © 2008 Black Brown Art Template by Ipiet's Blogger Template