19th October 2004
Any discussion about stormwater has to have a beginning and an end. But do stormwater problems begin where the rain falls, or when it runs into streams and coastal waters?
I’ve just been elected onto the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), having been a councillor with North Shore City Council (NSCC) for six years. In my briefing pack I have learned that “…the ARC has responsibility to control the use of land in order to maintain and enhance the quality of water and ecosystems in freshwater lakes and streams and in coastal waters….”
One of the biggest problems I had to deal with during my time as a city councillor, was the huge rate of development occurring in Albany’s Greenfield areas. Local planning commissioners have been overwhelmed by resource consent applications. Over a thousand new homes are being built each year in the catchment of the once pristine, bush enveloped, Lucas Creek. Last year, local residents became organised and formed the Friends of Lucas Creek. They illustrated their submissions to councillors with large glass containers of Lucas Creek water collected during storm events, graphically showing how much sediment was being discharged and had settled out. They were angry, and wanted to know whose responsibility it was to ensure developers complied with the conditions of their development permits.
At any one time over six hundred projects were under construction. Friends of Lucas Creek investigations suggested the NSCC was able to allocate only one person to monitor developments in the catchment and check compliance. They asserted there was no way one person could properly monitor and manage off-site effects due to runoff and sediment siltation from hundreds of building sites. I understand the ARC did not conduct development checks but did undertake periodic stream ecosystem population assessments.
Over the past two years, North Shore City Council has developed new stormwater policies, and is now changing the District Plan in order to them give effect. But just as water will always flow downhill, a grey area will continue to exist between city council and regional council responsibilities.
I don’t intend to explore jurisdictional boundaries further in this commentary, but I do want to explore the likely effectiveness of tighter rules and regulations in the District Plan. Will they solve the problem?
It is my belief, based on my time as councillor, that most developers and builders want to do the right thing. They will respond to rational conditions provided they can readily understand the desired environmental objectives, and accept the required actions as credible and efficient. For this class of developer, stormwater regulation needs to be economically efficient, and environmentally effective.
However there are other classes of developer. The quick and dirty is one. But the worst is the one who deliberately flouts the rules in order to reduce construction costs, knowing that the downside risk is not much worse than being slapped with a wet bus ticket. The shareholders in such development will quite understandeably be motivated to take the hit of a gentle fine, or grumpy letter, certain of better returns on investment. Their view of economic efficiency is quite different from that of the environmental regulator.
One effect of more detailed and comprehensive regulation could be that responsible developers become even more burdened with compliance costs, and delays associated with more onerous sign-off requirements and more boxes to be ticked by already over-worked Council consent staff. While deliberate flouters do the minimum necessary to obtain consent, and continue to flout the rules confident in the knowledge that the likelihood of being caught is slight, and that the worst case fine is already provided for in their contingency budgets.
It doesn’t take much sediment to severely damage a natural stream. It only takes a single badly managed construction site to destroy the ecosystems along a hundred metres of a high quality streambed. Activists in groups like Friends of Lucas Creek are aware of this, but most developers are not. Environmental Education can play an important role in increasing developer awareness. However there’s nothing more demotivating for environmental defenders, and irritating for developers who have gone the extra mile to do the right thing, than the developer who flouts the rules, does long term damage, and gets away with it.
Part of the answer has to be predictable and economically efficient enforcement.
I am concerned that efforts to increase stormwater regulation through more rules, but not enforcement, will simply perpetuate the status quo. We see this trend more and more in other aspects of life in New Zealand. Heritage buildings get knocked down because the fine is small beer compared to redevelopment profits. Cars with dirty exhausts and leaking engines continue to pollute the environment because enforcement is ineffective, despite continuing education. Transit lanes regulated for buses or cars with more than three occupants, get filled up by single occupant cars because the risk of being caught is negligible.
A couple of years ago North Shore City Council decided to strictly enforce its bus lane priorities in a busy city arterial. Officers with video cameras were employed every day to film the cars and their drivers who flouted the rules, and to fine them. Behaviour changed dramatically, the carrying capacity of the road increased sharply, exhaust pollution due to congestion dropped, and the whole operation has been almost self-funding.
The same emphasis needs to be applied to stream and coastal protection. Regulation can only be effective, if it is enforced. Given a budget to achieve environmental protection outcomes, an appropriate balance needs to be struck between investment in the preparation of rules and consent conditions, the monitoring of compliance, and the imposition of fines commensurate with the damage caused.
ENDS