foxton wastewater treatment plant tangata whenua

Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant

Tangata Whenua Considerations

(LEI, 2015:B10)

Prepared for

Horowhenua District Council

Prepared by

July 2015

Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant Tangata Whenua Considerations (LEI, 2015:B10) Horowhenua District Council

This report has been prepared for the Horowhenua District Council by Lowe Environmental Impact (LEI). No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other parties.

Quality Assurance Statement

Task Responsibility Signature

Project Manager: Hamish Lowe

Prepared by: Peter Hill, Hamish Lowe, David

McCorkindale (HDC), Cathy

McCartney (HDC)

Reviewed by: Hamish Lowe, Phil Lake

Approved for Issue by: Hamish Lowe, Gallo Saidy

Status: Final

Prepared by:

Lowe Environmental Impact P O Box 4467 Palmerston North 4462

Ref: Foxton_WWTP_B10-Tangata_Whenua_Considerations-FINAL.docx

| T | [+64] 6 359 3099

Job No.: 10172

| E | [email protected] | W| www.lei.co.nz

Date: July 2015

Revision Status

Version Date Reviewer What Changed and Why

3 24/07/2015 DMc HDC updated iwi consultation section.

2 02/07/2015 HL Wider context revised and expanded

1 29/05/2015 PH Original draft

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1

2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 3

2.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Scope ..................................................................................................................... 4

3. STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR MAORI VALUES ..................................... 5

3.1 Resource Management Act ....................................................................................... 5

3.2 Horizons One Plan.................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Maori World View in the Context of the RMA .............................................................. 7

4. CONSULTATION AND IWI ....................................................................... 9

4.1 Consultation ............................................................................................................ 9

4.2 The Proposal ........................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Iwi with Whom Consultation has Taken Place ............................................................. 9

5. WRITTEN RECORD OF CONSULTATION WITH IWI .............................. 11

5.1 Documents ............................................................................................................ 11

5.2 Consultation with Iwi .............................................................................................. 11

6. CULTURAL CONCERNS .......................................................................... 19

6.1 Land Versus Water for Human Waste Discharges ...................................................... 19

6.2 Effects on Mauri ..................................................................................................... 19

6.3 Effects on Kaimoana .............................................................................................. 20

6.4 Effects on Sites of Significance ................................................................................ 20

6.5 Effects on Historic Land Occupation ......................................................................... 21

6.6 Suggested Mitigation Measures from Consultation .................................................... 21

7. DISCUSSION ON MITIGATION OF CULTURAL CONCERNS ................... 23

7.1 General ................................................................................................................. 23

7.2 Engagement .......................................................................................................... 23

7.3 Water Quality Effects ............................................................................................. 24

7.4 Impact on Mauri .................................................................................................... 24

7.5 Management Around Sites of Significance ................................................................ 24

8. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 26

9. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 28

10. APPENDICES.......................................................................................... 29

Appendix A Cultural Site Map (from Te Kenehi Teira’s presentation on 20 May 2014)

| Horowhenua District Council – Foxton WWTP Tangata Whenua Considerations | P a g e | 1 |

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Horowhenua District Council (“HDC”) is responsible for the operation of the Foxton municipal wastewater system. The resource consent which currently authorises the discharge of treated wastewater from the Foxton wastewater treatment plant (“FWWTP”) to the Foxton Loop of the Manawatu River expired on 1 December 2014 but HDC are able to continue discharging under this consent because a replacement application for a short term continuation was lodged with Horizons Regional Council (HRC) prior to its expiry. To meet expected conditions on a new resource consent, it is proposed to replace the present river discharge with a land discharge onto an area on Matakarapa. Consultation with the involved and affected community has indicated that there are tangata whenua cultural issues at Matakarapa, in addition to those typically considered for wastewater discharges, which will need to be considered when developing the wastewater discharge proposal. A Focus Group was established by HDC to help inform HDC’s direction and decisions on the proposal, and this group met on 9 occasions between 13 February and 8 December 2014 to discuss the opportunities for ongoing wastewater discharges. Iwi organisations were invited to participate as members of the Focus Group as well independently, and this participation enabled dialogue on the proposal between HDC and tangata whenua. Further iwi engagement has occurred since the end of the focus group consultative processes in order to better understand their concerns and to obtain appropriate cultural impact assessments (CIA’s). Over 20 sites in the general vicinity of Foxton have been considered for the location of a wastewater discharge facility, against requirements that the management of the discharge must be environmentally, socially, culturally and financially sustainable. While the Matakarapa proposal meets environmental, social and financial criteria as well as or better than any other option, there remain cultural perspectives on the proposal upon which agreement has not been reached with tangata whenua. This report lists the statutory provisions relating to managing the effects of activities on tangata whenua values. It compiles an account of the views expressed by tangata whenua on the Matakarapa proposal, analysed into themes in the hope of identifying a way forward with the support and agreement of tangata whenua. While two reported responses offer the prospect that mitigation measures may offer a path towards agreement, there have not been alternative sites proposed that may better meet Maori cultural expectations. The following conclusions were reached from the consultation with tangata whenua:

• Agreement has not been reached on a land discharge site that will meet Tangata Whenua cultural expectations.

• Effects of land discharge at Matakarapa on river water quality are considered by tangata whenua to result in effects that are not less than minor.

• Effects of a land discharge at Matakarapa on mauri of the awa and kaimoana are likewise considered by tangata whenua to not be acceptable, despite the wastewater discharge being to land.


• Effects of a land discharge at Matakarapa on sites of significance are considered by HDC to be able to be avoided, by the identification and avoidance of those sites in the placement and operation of discharge infrastructure. Tangata whenua have not indicated acceptance of this view.

• Further Cultural Impact Assessment reporting by tangata whenua

would be welcome as a means of refining and improving the mitigation measures that may be needed to ensure that cultural values are fully protected by the proposal.

A brief summary and an assessment of the proposal against statutory requirements for the use of Matakarapa with regard to cultural aspects is provided along with key areas of relevance to tangata whenua that require mitigation and/or consideration when developing a land application system at Matakarapa. These include:

• Engagement; • Water quality effects; • Impact on mauri; and • Management of land application around sites of significance.

It should be noted that this report has been prepared to inform the design of a land application system, and that consultation and refinement of cultural mitigation will be ongoing.


2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose

This report is to provide a generic overview of tangata whenua aspirations in relation to wastewater discharges, and in particular a summary of issues to date regarding the Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant (“FWWTP”) discharge consenting, which have been raised during focus group and iwi consultation, based on the proposed Matakarapa discharge location. In the absence of an updated Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA), information in this report can be used to inform the development of a design for the land application of wastewater at Matakarapa.

2.2 Background

The discharge of treated wastewater from the FWWTP requires re-consenting. The existing discharge from the FWWTP located on Matakarapa is directly to the Foxton Loop of the Manawatu River, and there is a wide consensus that this should not continue. Horowhenua District Council (“HDC”) has accordingly commissioned investigations into alternative discharge options for Foxton municipal wastewater. An important part of evaluating wastewater discharge options is consideration of community preferences. Environmental considerations are of course given detailed attention, but social, cultural and economic aspects of such options must also be considered. Accordingly, HDC has undertaken a programme of consultation with the community through a focus group and also directly with Iwi representatives, to seek opinions and preferences on the wastewater discharge options being considered. Options for wastewater discharge to the Manawatu River are:

• To continue the existing discharge; • To reduce the existing discharge, by putting some of the wastewater somewhere else; or • To stop the existing discharge, by putting all the wastewater somewhere else.

If some or all of the wastewater is to be “put somewhere else”, then a suitable somewhere else has to be found. If it cannot go into the Manawatu River, the only options are out to sea or onto land. While out to sea is technically possible, mobile and shallow sea floor conditions near the river mouth could be expected to make discharge pipeline installation and ongoing maintenance difficult and expensive. And a sea floor discharge anywhere near the coast should be expected to be just as culturally unacceptable to Tangata Whenua as the present river discharge is. So the alternative to a river discharge is a discharge to land. The key question is which piece of land? Areas of land that have been considered for wastewater discharge include the following:

• The existing Foxton Beach wastewater discharge area, in sand dunes inland from the settlement;

• Target Reserve, to the west of the main highway north of Foxton, with options including the golf course, pine plantations, or pasture;

• Matakarapa, on land adjacent to the existing WWTP; • South of the Manawatu River, with options including private farm land and pine

plantations; and • North and inland from Foxton, on private farm land stretching from north of Motuiti Road

to the Foxton-Shannon Road.


By a process of elimination, and for a wide variety of reasons, these five land options have been trimmed back to just Matakarapa. This report now seeks to lay out the considerations of this option that have been communicated to HDC by Tangata Whenua.

2.3 Scope

This report summarises existing information, including:

• Statutory provisions for Iwi consultation; • The written record of Iwi consultation regarding Matakarapa options; • Cultural concerns that have been expressed regarding human wastes and land vs water

discharges;

• Cultural concerns that have been expressed regarding potential effects of wastewater discharges on mauri and kaimoana;

• Cultural concerns that have been expressed regarding potential effects of wastewater discharges on sites of significance including urupa, kainga, waka tauranga, etc;

• Cultural concerns that have been expressed regarding potential effects of wastewater discharges on historic land occupation; and

• Discussion on mitigation of cultural concerns. The report does not “come up” with a proposal that will satisfy Iwi expectations. It does no more than present in a single report some key considerations in the relationship between tangata whenua and wastewater, and present the results of consultation with Iwi at several venues, on several occasions. A brief summary and an assessment of the use of Matakarapa with regard to cultural aspects of the proposal against statutory requirements is provided along with key areas of relevance to tangata whenua that require mitigation and/or consideration when developing a land application system at Matakarapa. It should be noted that this report has been prepared to inform the design of a land application system, and that consultation and refinement of cultural mitigation will be ongoing. Separate cultural impact assessments (CIA’s) written by iwi representatives with connections to Matakarapa are being prepared and will further refine the design and enable an assessment of effects of the proposed design on cultural values.


3. STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR MAORI VALUES

3.1 Resource Management Act

Specific provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) that relate to the incorporation of Maori values into decision-making on discharges into the environment include the following:

• Section 6 (e) states “In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising

functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and

protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the

following matters of national importance:

the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their

ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:”

• Section 8 states “In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions

and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection

of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty

of Waitangi”.

3.2 Horizons One Plan

Horizons One Plan (“HOP”) is the combined Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan governing the application of the RMA in the Manawatu-Whanganui Region. HOP’s provisions that relate to the incorporation of Maori values into decision-making on resource uses are specified in Chapter 2, “Te Ao Maori”. This chapter describes the resource management issues and environmental outcomes sought by tangata whenua, and provides links to provisions in other chapters of the plan that seek to deliver on these outcomes. This material prescribes the manner in which HRC as consent authority will address matters of significance to Maori, and in doing so spells out the matters that must be addressed in proposals such as the Foxton Wastewater Upgrade in order to satisfy Mari concerns. Chapter 2 of HOP includes the following provisions that are relevant to the Foxton wastewater discharge:

• The interpretation of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, referred to in Section 8

of the RMA, which is to be applied in this region, is as follows: “The key principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are relevant include:

(a) principle of active protection, (b) duty to act in good faith, (c) duty to make informed decisions through consultation, (d) principle of redress and a duty not to create new grievances, (e) principle of reciprocity, and (f) principle of mutual benefit.

• Mauri means “essential life force or principle; a metaphysical quality inherent in all things, both animate and inanimate”, but the following explains the concept in more detail. All things, both animate and inanimate, have been imbued with the mauri generated from within the realm of te kore. Nothing in the natural world is without this essential element - mauri represents the interconnectedness of all things that have being. Humans have an


added responsibility to ensure that the mauri inherent in natural resources is maintained. Inappropriate use of resources, for example, discharge of sewage to water impacts directly on the mauri of water and therefore all factors associated with it. The natural balance which exists amongst all things is disturbed and, in many cases, irreversibly damaged.

• Taonga means “all things prized or treasured, both tangible and intangible”, but the

following explains the concept in more detail. The concept of taonga relates to anything that is prized, treasured or valued for what it is, where it came from and what its potential is. The cultural and spiritual relationship of Māori with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga is referred to in the RMA as a matter of national importance. This implies that the word taonga incorporates not only the stated resources in s6(e) RMA, but also anything that is highly prized - physically, mentally, spiritually and culturally. Physically, taonga include traditional forms of food and natural material harvested for traditional purposes. Adverse effects on these would not only see the demise of the physical taonga (food and weaving materials), but the demise of spiritual and cultural taonga also. Hapū and iwi are concerned that resources of cultural and spiritual significance be protected.

• Wāhi tapu means “a site sacred to Māori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or mythological sense and includes rua kōiwi”. Wāhi tūpuna means “a site of cultural and historical significance to hapū or iwi - though not necessarily in a state of tapu”. The following explains these concepts in more detail. Wāhi tapu relates specifically to sites including areas or locations that remain in a state of tapu. These may include, but are not exclusively, urupā (burial sites), rua kōiwi (sites where human skeletal remains are traditionally placed), wai tohi (streams where baptismal rites are performed), and wāhi pakanga (battle sites). As hapū and iwi have the knowledge of their wāhi tapu, the task of defining wāhi tapu must rest with them. However, there may be some ambiguity as to which sites remain in a state of tapu. It is important to note that wāhi tūpuna exist (though not necessarily in a state of tapu) and should be protected. Such wāhi tūpuna may be ancient pā sites, important caves, landscape features, ancient pathways or tribal boundary indicators.

• Kaitiakitanga is defined in the RMA as meaning “the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship” and that definition is used in this Plan. The following explains the concept in more detail. The concept of kaitiakitanga is based on spiritual and physical guardianship met within the social norms and everyday practices of tikanga Māori. Recognition of the mauri held by particular resources also necessitates communication with the spiritual kaitiaki (guardian) to whom that resource is dedicated. The physical responsibility of kaitiakitanga is met by the recognition of the interconnectedness of all elements - mauri and wairua, tapu and noa, mana and tikanga Māori. Therefore, the ethics that underpin hapū and iwi responsibility to practise kaitiakitanga are based on spiritual and cultural practices and wise resource management to ensure a healthy environment for future generations.

• Water Quality and Demand is listed as a resource management issue of significance to Hapu and Iwi. Specifically, Issue 2-1(h) notes that “sewage disposed to water, in treated form or otherwise, is culturally abhorrent. Land-based treatment is preferred.”

• Land use and management is listed as a resource management issue of significance to Hapu and Iwi. Specifically, Issue 2-2(l) notes that “the removal, destruction or alteration


of wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna by inappropriate activities continues to have a detrimental effect on those sites and upon hapū and iwi.”

• Objective 2-1 seeks to achieve the following: “(a) To have regard to the mauri of natural and physical resources to enable hapū and iwi to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. (b) Kaitiakitanga must be given particular regard and the relationship of hapū and iwi with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga (including wāhi tūpuna) must be recognised and provided for through resource management processes.”

• Policy 2-1 provides that “The Regional Council must enable and foster kaitiakitanga and

the relationship between hapū and iwi and their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga (including wāhi tūpuna) through increased involvement of hapū and iwi in resource management processes including: (i) the Regional Council advising and encouraging resource consent applicants to consult directly with hapū or iwi where it is necessary to identify:

(i) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral

lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga (including wāhi tūpuna), and

(ii) the actual and potential adverse effects of proposed activities on those relationships.”

• Policy 2-2 provides that “(a) Wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna and other sites of significance to

Māori identified: (i) In the Regional Coastal Plan and district plans, (ii) as historic reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, (iii) as Māori reserves under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, (iv) as sites recorded in the New Zealand Archaeological Association’s Site Recording Scheme, and (v) as registered sites under the Historic Places Act 1993, must be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use or development that would cause adverse effects on the qualities and features which contribute to the values of these sites.”

• The management of sewage waste (“Mahi tautara”) is given coverage in the following

terms: “There are serious physical and spiritual connotations to hapū and iwi associated with human sewage discharge to water. The act of doing so intentionally is, in itself, regarded as “poke” - an act of spiritual and physical uncleanliness (this term may vary between iwi). Land-based treatment of sewage is preferred. The physical and spiritual effects on hapū and iwi can be wide-ranging. The best method of avoiding these effects is the prevention of direct discharge.”

3.3 Maori World View in the Context of the RMA

The Ministry for the Environment “Making Good Decisions” programme and supporting information (MfE, 2013) provides detail on the Maori world view, and considerations for decision making when evaluating resource consent applications. This information has been used to inform the discussion below. It is often described when consulting with Maori that there is no ‘one’ Maori world view; with iwi and hapu having different perspectives. However, there are many common elements, especially


in relation to mauri and the management of wastewater, as discussed above in relation to the HOP. More generically, a key consideration is whakapapa, which binds tangata whenua to the land and natural resources. This clearly demonstrates the connection of iwi with natural resources, which in many cases are considered taonga. The relationship between Maori and taonga is reflected through the kaitiaki system, with kaitiakitanga providing for the active protection of resources and ecosystems in order to maintain and protect mauri of all taonga. It is generally accepted by all tangata whenua that the direct discharging of wastes to water is abhorrent and culturally unacceptable. This is typically as a result of the wastes negatively impacting on the mauri of the awa (water). While it accepted that wastes will always be discharged, they need to be managed in such a way that the mauri of the awa in the area of the discharge is maintained or enhanced. This is typically achieved through land passage, or a biofiltration type process whereby the mauri of the discharged water is restored, typically as a result of a form of land passage through papatuanuku. Consequently tangata whenua’s preference for land passage provides for a process of mauri to be restored in discharged water. In the case of the Foxton wastewater project and awa in the area, the Manawatu River is considered to be a taonga. Moving away from a surface water discharge of Foxton’s wastewater and adopting land passage is seen as a way of HDC contributing to improve the mauri of the Manawatu River and help tangata whenua provide for kaitiakitanga of their taonga, the Manawatu River.


4. CONSULTATION AND IWI

4.1 Consultation

As stated in Policy 2-1 of HOP (see Section 3.2 above) consultation with hapu and iwi is encouraged in order to identify sites and cultural relationships, and to identify adverse effects of proposed activities on those relationships. This section of this report is to describe the consultation with Iwi on the FWWTP project, and in particular the use of Matakarapa for land application of wastewater, that has taken place to date, and to describe the results of that consultation. Consultation here means that identified parties have been provided with information on the FWWTP proposal, and/or have met with HDC personnel to discuss the proposal, have been invited to provide responses to the proposal, and have (or have not) chosen to provide responses to the proposal.

4.2 The Proposal

Foxton’s municipal wastewater discharge is currently from the FWWTP located on Matakarapa, into the Foxton Loop of the Manawatu River. There is a community consensus that this discharge to the river is unacceptable, so a discharge to land will be required instead. Over twenty sites have been given more or less consideration by HDC and its professional advisers as potential wastewater discharge sites. The environmental, social, financial and cultural implications of each possible site needed to be considered. The possible sites have been considered through a process described in the Best Practicable Discharge Site Report (HDC, 2015:C6), to arrive at the preferred option, which is now the proposal. The Proposal is to discharge treated wastewater from the FWWTP to land, as irrigation of pasture and or trees, within an identified area of Matakarapa. There is not proposed to be any direct discharge of wastewater to the Foxton Loop or to the Manawatu River. Alternative proposals that have been considered in consultation with Iwi and the wider community include the following:

• Target Reserve;

• Private farm land to the north and south of Motuiti Road; • Private farm land including Waitarere Forest south of the Manawatu

River; and • Various sites near Foxton Beach.

4.3 Iwi with Whom Consultation has Taken Place

In no particular order, Iwi organisations which have been invited to participate in consultation on FWWTP land discharge options are:

• Rangitaane Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu Incorporated (TMI); • Ngati Raukawa; • Ngati Whakatere;


• Ngati Apa; and • Muaupoko Cooperative Society.

HDC has tried to be inclusive of formal Maori organisations seeking to represent the views of their people. HDC has accepted the mandates of Iwi and Hapu attendees without question, and the contributions of all to consideration of the available options have been valued and respected equally. Several Iwi have been involved in consultation on this project, with each expressing its views or those of its representatives. This report does not set out to find contrasts between the views of different Iwi, but rather seeks to identify the themes and issues that are shared.


5. WRITTEN RECORD OF CONSULTATION WITH IWI

5.1 Documents

Five documents record the results of Iwi consultation on Foxton wastewater discharge options, and subsequent sections of this report are based on, and derived from, what is included in those reports. The documents are listed as follows:

1. 2008, report “Cultural Impact Assessment for Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant” (TMI, 2008), prepared by Tanenuiarangi O Manawatu Inc, for HDC, (and marked “Commercial and in Confidence”).

2. 3 January 2009, letter “Potential Sites for Land Based Disposal of Foxton Wastewater”, from Paul Horton, Environmental Officer, Tanenuiarangi O Manawatu Inc, addressed to Claire Scrimgeour, MWH New Zealand Ltd.

3. June 2010, report “Foxton Wastewater Land Based Disposal Options Study Progress Report”, prepared by MWH New Zealand Ltd, for HDC.

4. July 2012, internal report “Foxton Wastewater Treatment System Investigations Report”, prepared by Erin Ganley for HDC.

5. February 2015, internal report “Foxton Wastewater Discharge – Determination of the Best Practicable Discharge Site” (HDC, 2015:C6), prepared by a consortium of Council staff and consultants for HDC.

This part of this report is compiled from the records within these five documents, to record the issues raised by Iwi in respect of Foxton wastewater discharges. References to the documents refer to their numbers (1 to 5) in the listing above. HDC staff also contributed an update of iwi consultation and engagement that had occurred between February and July 2015.

5.2 Consultation with Iwi

This section of this report is derived from Document 5 (HDC, 2015:C6) and subsequent updates from HDC staff.

5.2.1 Who was Consulted

The current resource consent authorising the discharge of treated wastewater to the Foxton Loop specifies parties to be consulted about the site and discharge methods to be used in future proposals. The list of parties to be consulted comes from the list of submitters to the 1997 and 2009 resource consent processes. The list comprised Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated, Ngati Raukawa, and 3 other non-iwi organisations. In early 2009 HDC consulted directly with the listed consultative parties. To advance consultation with people and organisations involved or interested, HDC established a Focus Group of invited persons, which held the first of a series of meetings in February 2014. The invited membership of the Focus Group was initially as follows:

• Mayor and 2 Councillors (Elected Members); • 2-3 Members of the Foxton Beach community nominated by the

Foxton Community Board;

• 2 Council Officers; • Foxton Wastewater Scheme - Technical Expert; • Horizons Regional Council Officers;


• Representatives from the Local Iwi (Rangitaane, Ngati Raukawa, Muaupoko and Ngati Apa);

• A representative from WECA; • A representative from Save Our River Trust (SORT); • A representative from Department of Conservation (DoC); • A representative from Fish and Game; • A representative from the High Users – Turks; • A representative from Manawatu Estuary Trust; and • A representative from Public Health Unit (Mid Central Health).

At an early stage, Ngati Whakatere identified themselves as having an historic association with the land on Matakarapa, and accordingly were invited to participate in consultation. Ngati Apa and the Muaupoko Cooperative Society were invited, but chose not to attend the Focus Group meetings. Despite not participating they have continued to be sent information about the project and Focus Group meetings. The following Raukawa iwi/hapu were invited to attend meetings during 2015 for updates on the project and to discuss the preparation of a CIA for Raukawa:

• Ngati Whakatere,

• Ngati Rakau,

• Ngati Turanga,

• Ngati Te Au,

• Ngati Pareraukawa,

• Ngati Kikopiri,

• Ngati Hinemata,

• Ngati Ngarango, and

• Ngati Takihiku.

The meetings were attended by representatives from Ngati Whakatere, Ngati Rakau, Ngati Turanga, and Ngati Hinemata. TMI were also invited to attend meetings in June 2015 to discuss their involvement in preparing a CIA separately from Ngati Whakatere. The Tangata Whenua organisations actively participating in consultation on the Foxton wastewater discharge were therefore as follows:

• Ngati Whakatere; • Rangitaane; and • Ngati Raukawa, through various Foxton Hapu.

5.2.2 When Were They Consulted

The meetings of the Focus Group, which included Tangata Whenua, are summarised as follows:

• 13 February 2014, at HDC Council Chambers, Levin. Introductory meeting, with presentations on issues to be addressed.

• 2 March 2014, at Te Whare Manaaki, Foxton. The purpose of this meeting was to list and rank the key values and issues to be considered.


• 8 April 2014, at Te Whare Manaaki, Foxton. The purpose of this

meeting was to present and discuss LEI’s report on the preliminary feasibility of using Matakarapa and Target Reserve for land treatment.

• 13 May 2014, site visit to Matakarapa. Based on information shared in previous meetings about the previous use and cultural significance of Matakarapa, this visit was organised for those interested.

• 20 May 2014, at HDC Council Chambers, Levin. The purpose of this meeting was to review the outcomes of HDC’s previous consultation on potential WWTP and land discharge sites, and to progress the Focus Group’s preferred options. The meeting was also to provide an update on the Iwi consultation that had been undertaken and provide Iwi this opportunity to present the cultural history and values associated with Matakarapa.

• 6 June 2014, at Te Whare Manaaki and site visit to Target Reserve.

The purpose of this meeting was to present and discuss preliminary investigation reports on the feasibility of land discharges and/or relocated WWTP to Target Reserve and Darleydale Farm (located between Wall Road and Motuiti Road north of Foxton).

• 10 June 2014, wastewater treatment tour. A bus tour of 9 WWTPs between Levin, Feilding and Masterton, to enable Focus Group members to see the various systems operating and have them explained.

• 19 June 2014, at HDC Council Chambers, Levin. The purpose of this

meeting was to present and discuss conceptual design assessments for land discharges onto Target Reserve and Matakarapa. The intention was to outline the options being considered, check that nothing had been missed, and provide an opportunity for Focus Group members to share their perspectives on these options.

As a result of the clear historical association with Matakarapa, and to a lesser extent Target Reserve, Iwi were given an opportunity by HDC to coordinate a series of hui and report back to HDC and ultimately the Focus Group on issues that related to iwi and wastewater management. Consideration was also to be given to the potential cultural benefits that could arise from utilising Matakarapa in terms of the enhanced access and protection that could potentially be achieved for the site’s significance. This process was to be coordinated by Ngati Whakatere. It was intended that the result of the discussion would nominate preference with respect to a site for the discharge of wastewater. This opportunity effectively paused the Focus Group process and provided Iwi time and an opportunity to collectively gather and present their thoughts and provide HDC officers with feedback. The feedback would be by or on behalf of the elders of Ngati Whakatere and the other Iwi. Initially the collective Iwi hui was scheduled for 28 September 2014, however this was then rescheduled for 16-19 October 2014. The feedback to Council Officers from this hui was to be provided after the hui. Despite requests by Officers no feedback was provided and further Iwi hui were requested. The consequence was the reconvening and reporting back to the Focus


Group was effectively paused while these hui were occurring. Council Officers were subsequently invited to attend a meeting on 1 December 2014 at Te Whare Manaaki with representatives of the iwi group for a report back on their findings.

• 8 December 2014, at Manawatu College hall, Foxton. The purpose

of the meeting was to provide an update on progress since the previous Focus Group meeting in June, in particular an update on the lodgement of the short term consent application with Horizons Regional Council. The intention was for this to be the final Focus Group meeting for the site selection phase of the project, and if possible for a single preferred site to be identified. The meeting was also the opportunity for Iwi to provide feedback on the series of hui that they had held since the meetings in June.

Since the last Focus Group meeting in December, engagement with iwi has continued, especially in regard to the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). The consultation summary report (HDC, 2015:D5) provides detail of wider consultation, but some key meetings are described below.

� 28 April 2015, at HDC Levin. Representatives of the nine iwi/hapu of Raukawa were invited

to this meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to provide updates on the project, including an outline of the various information layers and value assessments required for designing and consenting the future system. Another purpose was to discuss the preparation of a CIA for the nine iwi/hapu of Raukawa.

� 5 June 2015. TMI attended this meeting to discuss their involvement in preparing a CIA given that they had previously prepared the CIA that informed the resource consent applications in 2008.

� 8 June 2015. Pre-meeting discussions with Ngati Whakatere regarding the process and need for a CIA that represented the values of Raukawa.

� 9 June 2015, at Te Whare Manaaki. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the process and need for the preparation of a CIA for the nine iwi/hapu of Raukawa.

5.2.3 What Were the Views Expressed?

At and following the series of 9 consultative meetings, the views expressed by Tangata Whenua organisations and individuals were as follows:

• At the 2 March 2014 meeting, land based treatment and discharge was the preferred option for Focus Group members. All iwi preferred Target Reserve, while most other Focus Group members preferred Matakarapa. The Focus Group requested HDC to prepare a preliminary feasibility report on land treatment options at Matakarapa and Target Reserve.

• At the 8 April meeting, there was a strong division of preferences for and against both Matakarapa and Target Reserve. HDC was requested to provide at the next meeting a summary of previous consultation on all potential sites.

• At the 20 May 2014 meeting, Iwi were invited to present the cultural

history and values associated with Matakarapa. Te Kenehi Teira


gave a detailed account of the historical use of the island and the associated cultural values. The presentation referred to a map Te Kenehi had compiled identifying cultural sites of significance.

• At the 6 June 2014 meeting, the Focus Group was presented a

summary about the use of Darleydale Farm. Council identified that this option was a long way from Foxton and had high costs. The Focus Group requested HDC to reconsider Target Reserve and Matakarapa as well as more seriously considering conceptual design options for these sites.

• At the 19 June 2014 meeting, the Focus Group was split with its

preferences for and against each site. The Focus Group requested the consideration of Waitarere Forest as another potential option. The Group was told of the need for HDC to lodge a consent application with Horizons by September, and the Group asked Officers to seek an extension from Horizons. It was felt that more time was needed before a site could be selected. The cultural concerns identified with Matakarapa needed to be weighed up and considered further. Iwi requested more time to be able to consider these impacts and to investigate alternative sites. At this stage HDC decided to engage specifically with iwi and provided an opportunity for a series of self-managed hui, with the outcomes to be reported back. Officers committed to exploring options with Horizons to provide additional time for this process and in particular further considerations of the cultural considerations.

• At the meeting between HDC and iwi on 1 December 2014 at Te Whare Manaaki, an oral account was provided of iwi connection to the Manawatu River. The Poutu Marae model of wellbeing was outlined. It was made clear that the collective opinion was wastewater should not be applied to Matakarapa or Target Reserve and any wastewater should be kept out of the river. Despite a request for a preferred site to be identified in the initial brief, no alternative sites were provided during this meeting. Reference to land in the general area inland from Foxton was made, but no specific site was identified. No written report was provided.

• At the 8 December 2014 meeting the results of the iwi hui were

reported back, with a presentation by Robert Ketu, Peter Hirawani and Willy McGregor explaining the Poutu model of wellbeing, describing iwi connections with the Manawatu River, and concluding by stating that Iwi did not support discharging to Matakarapa or Target Reserve, and HDC had to find an alternative site. Several members of the Focus Group spoke offering alternative views. At the end of the meeting the Focus Group was reminded of the timeframes HDC was committed to working towards. In recognising that there was not a single shared view on the preferred site by the Focus Group, the Focus Group members were then provided with a form to take away with them and complete allowing them to identify their preferred option, providing reasons for their selection, and to provide their responses to HDC to inform the selection of the most suitable site for the FWWTP.


• Following the 8 December meeting, individual Focus Group

members provided responses on the forms referred to above. The responses from tangata whenua representatives within the Focus Group are quoted below:

Viti Taylor objected to the use of Matakarapa, and included the following comments: “Affects our river, our Kaimoana, estuary at Foxton Beach. Te Urupa and our tupuna are our treasure. A very important historical and cultural site on Matakarapa. My mother Winiwini (Paora) Chambers was raised up on the island. My father-in-law, Wen Taylor also had a strong connection with Matakarapa.” Kim Taylor also opposed the use of Matakarapa but provided no explanations for this; presumably Kim echoes Viti’s views.

Barbara Twowley objected to the use of Matakarapa for the following reasons: “It's Sacred land. That's it in a nutshell. Leave it alone. Why desecrate Matakarapa; would you do that to Foxton Cemetery. There are other places, try looking at them. Matakarapa is my Whakapapa links to my Tupuna.”

Robert Warrington (Muaupoko) wrote that “None of the options put forward would be described as preferable for varying reasons” and specifically listed his concerns that Matakarapa “has various Maori urupa, cultural significance, and a potential multi million dollar shellfish fishery industry to local Iwi (not to mention a customary fishery) to consider (NZ's largest whitebait spawning habitat).” He provided the following comments supporting this stance: “None of the options would ever be preferred until Maori Taonga are protected, this includes Urupa and the fishery. Works such as a wastewater facility are obtrusive to papatuanuku. An equal value of restoration work should be implemented elsewhere. Put another way, you can place it where you like BUT protect the Taonga entirely (both physically and spiritually), and provide utu for the imbalance to papatuanuku. If that means finding another site because protection is not akin to guaranteed, then so be it.”

Heeni Collins (Ngati Kikopiri, Cook, Te Taitoa Maori, Te Awahou) wrote that “All hapu oppose the continued treatment of wastewater on Matakarapa. Further options should be investigated such as south of Motuiti Road.”

Paul Horton (Rangitaane/TMI) favoured the use of Target Reserve over Matakarapa because this would avoid known waahi tapu and support a possible extension of native planting to supplement Omarupapako (Round Bush) adjacent to the north-western corner of Target Reserve.

Te Kenehi Teira (Ngati Raukawa) was the only Iwi representative to suggest a new alternative land discharge site: an area of land that he described as located on the “south Side of Motuiti Road, halfway to Block Road on the sandhills. This area is in the Awahou Block area not the Himatangi Block or the Te Rewarewa area of the old village where Turongo church stood.” His reasons for suggesting this locality were that “It is not near any marae or waterbody.”

Dr Bob Hoskins described Maori heritage and his links with Foxton as follows: “Although I am not from local iwi (Ngati Porou is my iwi), for the last twenty five years I have been passionate about the area between the State Highway Manawatu Road Bridge and the Manawatu River mouth, putting in walking


tracks with the permission of the Horowhenua District Council (and hoping for more cycleways away from roads), working on the Manawatu River Loop at Foxton (Piriharakeke) removing willows and invasive weed species and planting natives, picking up rubbish on road berms, the river loop and the beach, planting the banks of Whitebait Creek and planting the lake margins that are north of Foxton Beach. This has been done with the approval of local iwi with some suggestions. I am on the Manawatu Estuary Management Team, am a Trustee of Save our River Trust and a Trustee of the Wildlife Foxton Trust.” His preference was to discharge to Matakarapa, and some of his reasons for this are as follows: “The treated waste water must not continue to be put into the river, but must be put to land. The island has the ability to be irrigated with the treated waste water which is currently being put straight into the river. This would be a major improvement on the status quo… There is sufficient land away from the few Urupa that are known.” He commented on the cultural connections with the land as follows: “Only iwi who have lived on Matakarapa Island should be permitted a say in the disposal of treated waste water there. The iwi stance of no treated waste water to the island is not valid when one considers virtually all iwi are urbanised, none live on Matakarapa Island, and the sale of Matakarapa lands in the twentieth century were legal. We cannot live in the past but must respectfully move forward for the benefit of all people, the fauna and flora and the environment.” “Finally I quote from Catherine Knight's 2014 book "Ravaged Beauty" on the sale by Ngati Raukawa of the Te Awahou Block (which borders Matakarapa Island), page 68. 'We have considered this matter, bidden farewell to and finally disposed of this possession of ours its rivers, streams, lakes, waters trees, grass stones, precipices, good and bad places, and everything upon and under the earth together with all its productions.' This statement recognises that a sale is not a mere transaction concerning a piece of property, but also involved the relinquishment of spiritual connection with the land and everything within it.”

HDC had requested prior to the December 2014 Focus Group meeting, and following that meeting, a written summary of the hui process, who had attended, and confirmation of the group’s position. This was not provided despite several requests. Consultation to canvas views further continued and at a 28 April 2015 meeting with Raukawa representatives, a presentation was given to explain the flooding information and the various information layers required to develop the consent documentation. HDC’s technical team introduced the concept of the sustainable stool/chair based on the consent application needing the following four legs (Cultural, Environmental, Finance and Recreation and Social) and the following layers (Gather information, Design, Consent and Operate and Manage). The Ngati Whakatere representatives presented the Poutu Marae Wellbeing model and the principles of Partnership, Protection and Participation. At this meeting the process for further meetings and the preparation of a CIA by Raukawa representatives was discussed. The Raukawa representatives made it clear to HDC that Ngati Whakatere had been given their full mandate to represent the views of all Raukawa iwi and hapu.

There was a further meeting with Raukawa held 9 June 2015 at Te Whare Manaaki to discuss the preparation of a CIA. The same group of nine Raukawa iwi/hapu were invited. The meeting was attended by Ngati Whakatere representatives Robert Ketu, Mark Puti and Adrian Hurunui. (It is noted that Milton Rauhihi (Ngati Whakatere / Rakau) performed the opening karakia before he left the meeting). This meeting had been preceded by a pre-meeting discussion on 8 June 2015 between HDC officers and Ngati Whakatere. The process and need for preparing a CIA was


discussed with Ngati Whakatere agreeing to prepare a CIA on behalf of the nine iwi and hapu that had provided the mandate to Ngati Whakatere. At the meeting held with TMI on 5 June 2015 the relevance of their CIA that informed the short term consent in 2008 was discussed. At this meeting TMI confirmed they would prepare an updated CIA and that they would not be interested in preparing a combined CIA with Ngati Whakatere. Letters were subsequently sent by HDC to both Ngati Whakatere and TMI inviting them to each prepare their respective CIA’s. Additional correspondence and discussions took place between Ngati Whakatere and HDC officers to confirm the mandate of Ngati Whakatere and arrangements for preparing the CIA. Despite numerous requests by HDC for written confirmation of tangata whenua views and their basis, iwi have not provided this. Iwi have also been unwilling or unable to nominate suitable specific alternative sites for HDC’s consideration despite numerous requests to do so. Following a period of negotiation and engagement, both TMI and Ngati Whakatere agreed in June and July 2015 respectively to prepare CIA’s regarding their iwi’s cultural values for Matakarapa. However, the timing of providing these CIA’s has been too late for informing the preliminary conceptual design process for FWWTP. Consequently, in the absence of CIA’s or written accounts of Iwi views, the account of iwi values for this report has had to be interpreted from collation of all previous iwi engagement records by HDC officers and LEI.


6. CULTURAL CONCERNS

6.1 Land Versus Water for Human Waste Discharges

During the consultation reported in Section 4 above, and in such previous communications as TMI’s CIA (Document 1) a general preference has been expressed by Tangata Whenua for human wastes to be discharged to land, rather than to water. This preference is supported by the HOP statement that: “there are serious physical and spiritual connotations to hapū and iwi associated with human sewage discharge to water. The act of doing so intentionally is, in itself, regarded as poke - an act of spiritual and physical uncleanliness (this term may vary between iwi). Land-based treatment of sewage is preferred. The physical and spiritual effects on hapū and iwi can be wide-ranging. The best method of avoiding these effects is the prevention of direct discharge.” In Document 2, and recounted in Document 3, TMI expressed their preferences in respect of sites being considered in 2009 as follows:

• Sites north of Foxton Beach and Ferry reserve were considered of least concern, provided archaeological issues were addressed;

• Sites adjacent to the Loop and Manawatu Estuary were less desirable due to concerns about contamination of the river; and

• Target Reserve was not supported due to the impact on waahi tapu sites, urupa, marae and the Round Bush Ecological Reserve.

In its 2008 Cultural Impact Assessment, TMI (Document 1) addresses the issue of wastewater discharges to the Manawatu River in the following terms:

“The mixing of waste/pollution with the Manawatu River is seen by Rangitaane o Manawatu as very offensive.”

It is clear that human sewage discharges to land are strongly favoured over those to water.

6.2 Effects on Mauri

Normally effects of wastewater on a river’s mauri would be considered to arise from direct wastewater discharges to a river; historically most such discharges have been to rivers, and nationally Iwi (and other community members) have successfully argued to have provisions now included in most Regional Policy Statements (including Horizons’ One Plan) to protect mauri from the effects of wastewater discharges to water. TMI’s 2008 Cultural Impact Assessment addressed a resource consent application to continue the discharge to the river, rather than the present proposal which is to discharge to land. That report explained the meaning and relevance of mauri in the following terms: “The most significant quality that flows through the Manawatu River is its mauri. This binds all the physical, traditional and spiritual elements of all things together, generating, nurturing and upholding all life. Mauri is the most crucial element that binds Rangitaane with the Manawatu River, and that relationship has consisted for over six hundred years of unbroken occupation.


The interconnected waterways of the Manawatu form a dendritic pattern across the landscape. The mauri supplied from the mountains and areas in the gorge is then believed to be transported from along these waterways to nourish and feed the land and everything living on the land. The Manawatu River for Rangitaane o Manawatu is seen as the main artery in this network containing the strongest and greatest amount of mauri. It is believed if any activity that disrupts the flow of the waterway or pollutes the watercourse then it is seen as having a negative impact on the contained mauri which then in turn has a direct negative impact on the Rangitaane o Manawatu land and people.” The potential effects of a wastewater discharge on mauri arise if the discharge is directly to a water body. However, the proposed Foxton discharge is to land, and not to water. There may be movement of applied wastewater by drainage through the land to the river, but this is implicit in any discharge of any wastewater to any land, anywhere. What is not known is any means to quantify the effect of a discharge such as that proposed for Foxton on the mauri of the river; mauri is a metaphysical consideration that does not lend itself to objective measurement.

6.3 Effects on Kaimoana

The potential effect of any discharge on kaimoana differs from the effect on mauri, in that effects on kaimoana can be objectively measured, while effects on mauri cannot. Significant contamination of a waterway as a result of a discharge could potentially reduce both the size and number of fish (and bird, and invertebrate) species using that habitat. There are well-established scientific methods to measure both the extent of contamination and the extent of its effect on aquatic populations. In Section 4.2.3 above, Viti Taylor is recorded noting that the proposed Matakarapa land discharge “Affects our river, our Kaimoana, estuary at Foxton Beach”. This view, while obviously sincerely held, presumes that because Matakarapa is close to the river, wastewater contamination will get into the river, and that this will adversely affect the fishery there. Also in Section 4.2.3 above, Robert Warrington is recorded noting that “None of the options would ever be preferred until Maori Taonga are protected, this includes Urupa and the fishery.” The fishery may be taken to include kaimoana. Again, there is a presumption that wastewater will contaminate river water, and will therefore also contaminate the fishery. If there is an effect on the fishery from the present direct discharge of wastewater to the Foxton Loop of the Manawatu River, the extent of that effect has not been commented on in consultation with hapu and iwi. That effect would be unlikely to be measurable because, according to Cawthron (2013) Report No 2440 (Foxton Wastewater – Estuary Assimilative Capacity Assessment), the Foxton wastewater discharge contributes only 0.02% of the total nutrient load to the river. And whatever the effect on the fishery may be from the present discharge, the effect of the proposed land discharge will be a great deal less than that because there will no longer be any direct discharge into the river.

6.4 Effects on Sites of Significance

Sites of significance include urupa and waahi tapu, which apart from those that have been taken in river erosion may be considered to be identifiable or definable land features, rather than water features, and to comprise geographically discrete sites. Such sites may be physically recognisable today, but the location of many now exist only in the collective cultural memory of Iwi. TMI notes in its 2008 Cultural Impact Assessment that “it is important to note that within the Rangitaane o Manawatu rohe there are over 700 sites of significance with ~30% being considered


waahi tapu. At present only a handful still exist (less than 10) in the original state, and none are formally protected by the Historic Places Trust.” Both Viti Taylor and Robert Warrington extend their comments on effects on kaimoana to include effects on sites of significance. These concerns clearly relate to the prospect of human wastewater, regarded as offensive, being applied onto areas of land which are sites of significance. While the quantum of such an effect may not be able to be measured, the presence of such an effect would remain an affront to Maori whose tupuna lived on, and had particular associations with, the area of land concerned. HOP Policy 2-2 provides for the protection of sites of significance from the effects of such activities as the proposed Foxton discharge, subject only to those sites being formally recorded in one (or more) of 5 specified legal procedures (see Policy 2-2 in Section 3.2 above). The most detailed documentation held by HDC of culturally significant sites on Matakarapa is Te Kenehi Teira’s map of the historical use of the island and the associated cultural sites of significance which was presented at the 20 May 2014 focus group meeting, and a figure based on this map is presented in Appendix A. This shows general rohe of hapu as well as specific features such as kainga and urupa. The precision of some site locations has been questioned by the land owners, but the overall validity of the map’s contents has been accepted.

6.5 Effects on Historic Land Occupation

Historic land occupation is harder to define geographically than sites of significance, as it does not identify locations such as residential or ceremonial sites, but the wider area of land around these. Whakapapa of individuals and hapu connect people living now with their ancestors and the places where they lived, loved, fought and died. Viti Taylor refers in particular to her mother and her father-in-law as having lived on Matakarapa. And while Ms Taylor speaks clearly and fairly for herself, the family connection with Matakarapa is self-evidently a value held by many descendants of earlier residents of the area, stretching back for many generations. As with sites of significance, concern among Tangata Whenua is for the prospect of human wastes being applied to land that has a historic, and pre-historic, family connection.

6.6 Suggested Mitigation Measures from Consultation

This section of this report is to give an account of the mitigation measures that have been suggested by tangata whenua with whom there has been consultation on the subject. In its Cultural Impact Assessment of 2008, TMI raised the issue of mitigation of effects of a discharge of Foxton wastewater to the Manawatu River. To be fair, both the discharge proposal and, perhaps, TMI’s consideration of acceptable mitigation measures have moved on in the 7 years since the CIA was prepared. TMI’s report nevertheless provides a useful insight into the principles that might be involved. The CIA includes the following passage: “The mixing of waste/pollution with the Manawatu River is seen by Rangitaane o Manawatu as very offensive. This unnatural mixing and degradation of mauri is inevitable. Yet there are ways to remedy the situation through enhancing the mauri in other areas of the river. This process of mauri restoration can be undertaken through consultation with Rangitaane o Manawatu. This gives way to enabling Rangitaane o Manawatu in creating the appropriate development strategies to determine the health of river and the state of its mauri.


It has been suggested by various iwi nationwide, including Rangitaane o Manawatu, that these wastes/waters can be purified by the earth or Papatuanuku. In some cases, land passages, gabion structures, or constructed wetlands have been developed to provide some cleansing to the waters prior to discharge. However, this construction may not be possible for this particular application, but it may be possible in future developments or with other consents.” As reported in HDC (2015:C6), Robert Warrington provided the following comment on the Matakarapa land discharge proposal: “None of the options would ever be preferred until Maori Taonga are protected, this includes Urupa and the fishery. Works such as a wastewater facility are obtrusive to papatuanuku. An equal value of restoration work should be implemented elsewhere. Put another way, you can place it where you like BUT protect the Taonga entirely (both physically and spiritually), and provide utu for the imbalance to papatuanuku. If that means finding another site because protection is not akin to guaranteed, then so be it.” Both the quoted passages above refer to the effects of a wastewater discharge being corrected, or compensated for, whether by the inclusion of land passage, or by utu in the form of equivalent value of restoration work.


7. DISCUSSION ON MITIGATION OF CULTURAL CONCERNS

7.1 General

Foxton’s municipal wastewater discharge has to go somewhere other than straight into the Manawatu River, which it does at present. HOP provides the policy framework against which a resource consent application to authorise a new discharge will be assessed. There has been a process of engagement with iwi representatives to discuss options and implications, but there has not been agreement reached on specifically what mitigation is required for the use of Matakarapa. Arising out of the above, the following mitigation issues and options represent HDC’s current understanding of the issues and what is required to resolve them:

• Engagement; • Water quality effects; • Impact on mauri; and

• Management around sites of significance.

7.2 Engagement

Resource Management Act Requirements The requirement of s6(e) to recognise and provide for the relationship of tangata whenua with their cultural sites has been addressed by HDC engaging with tangata whenua, setting out options for Foxton wastewater discharge, and inviting expressions of preference. The requirement of s8 to take into account the principles of the treaty has been met by HDC, as addressed in more specific detail below. Principles of the Treaty Each of the 6 principles listed in HOP is addressed as follows.

• Active Protection. HDC seeks a sustainable, long-term wastewater discharge system that will provide long term improvements to the effects of the current discharge on cultural aspects of the Manawatu River. This protection will be active, and on-going.

• Good Faith. HDC has consulted extensively with tangata whenua in good faith, seeking a solution to the difficulties presented by the current discharge system. As a publicly accountable local authority, HDC is seeking the best outcome for all its ratepayers.

• Consultation. HDC has consulted with tangata whenua, seeking opinions on options presented, and seeking alternative proposals where none of those presented met full approval. This consultation is expected to be ongoing.

• No New Grievances. The Foxton wastewater discharge proposal seeks to remedy an existing cause for grievance, by establishing a new discharge system that will not be the cause of any new grievance, or at least a grievance that would not unreasonably be expected to occur or need to be addressed at any alternative site.

• Reciprocity. This principle envisages a “them” and an “us”, which HDC considers is not the case with the Foxton discharge proposal; there is only an “us”. Tangata whenua live in Foxton, pay rates, and


contribute their fair share of wastewater to be treated and discharged. Significant expense will be involved in replacing the current river discharge with a land discharge system, mainly for the purpose of correcting a cultural perception that the river discharge is causing unacceptable environmental harm.

• Mutual Benefit. The mutual benefit again envisages two competing parties, where HDC’s view is that, in the words of Governor Grey, “we are one people”. HDC on behalf of all its Foxton ratepayers and reticulated wastewater generators will benefit by establishing a land discharge system that will meet statutory and environmental standards, which is not the case at present. Tangata whenua will benefit by the removal of a direct discharge of municipal wastewater to the Manawatu River.

7.3 Water Quality Effects

All direct and indirect discharges of wastewater to land and water have the potential to impact on water quality. The key water body of concern with respect to water quality is the Manawatu River, including the Foxton Loop. Work to date on assessing the impact of the operation of the Foxton WWTP would suggest that the current impact on water quality is relatively minor, especially when compared to background water quality (Aquanet (2012:A3) Shannon and Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plants: Assimilative Capacity of the Receiving Environment, Cawthron (2013:A3) Report No 2440. Foxton Wastewater – Estuary Assimilative Capacity Assessment and LEI (2014:B1) Summary of Existing Environmental Data for Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant). Despite this it is acknowledged and appreciated by HDC that all parties need to do their bit and contribute to improving the Manawatu River’s water quality; hence the proposal to pursue land application. The application of wastewater to land, especially during low flow conditions in the river, will reduce the nutrient and pathogen load reaching the river. While work is yet to be concluded on the effects of the proposed operation, it is not anticipated that the Foxton land application project will result in future nutrient enrichment or a pathogen load that will limit contact recreation, bathing and food gathering.

7.4 Impact on Mauri

It is noted that HOP states in Issue 2-1(h) “sewage disposed to water, in treated form or otherwise, is culturally abhorrent. Land-based treatment is preferred.” The proposed Matakarapa land discharge delivers directly on this challenge. Both HOP and TMI’s 2008 Cultural Impact Assessment (Document 1 in Section 5.1 above) make it clear that the mauri of the river is adversely impacted by the current direct river discharge of wastewater, and that this fact is a cultural insult to tangata whenua. The proposal for a discharge to land replacing the direct river discharge is intended, and expected, to improve the mauri of the river, and to remove the cultural insult of human wastewater discharging to water.

7.5 Management Around Sites of Significance

It is noted that HOP states in Issue 2-2(l) “the removal, destruction or alteration of wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna by inappropriate activities continues to have a detrimental effect on those sites


and upon hapū and iwi.” This could potentially become an issue if wastewater system construction or wastewater irrigation interfered with, or befouled, such wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna. Policy 2-2 of HOP provides that such sites of significance that are recorded in any one or more of 5 formal registers must be protected from inappropriate use. It is not known if such protection exists for any areas of the proposed land application area. If sites exist that warrant protection and avoidance, HDC will need to consider appropriate management to provide for that protection. HDC have reiterated this undertaking in meetings with iwi, and clearly stated that the proposed Foxton discharge system will avoid any actual or potential compromise of this provision by avoiding wastewater application to any known site of cultural significance, whether it is formally recorded or not. Processes are underway to identify such sites of cultural significance so that adverse effects in the proximity of those sites can be mitigated or avoided. Such processes include an archaeological investigation and further CIA focusing on land application of wastewater at Matakarapa. HDC have specifically undertaken to avoid all known sites of significance as identified on Te Kenehi Teira’s map of the historical use of the island and the associated cultural sites of significance. The archaeological investigation aims to confirm the accuracy of the locations of the various features on this map. HDC and their advisors have specifically selected the southern portion of Matakarapa as the focus of the land discharge investigations in order to avoid the majority of the sites that were identified on this map. The small number of sites within the investigation area (mainly at specific points along the western and southern edges of the island) will be avoided entirely and protected from any disturbance from earthworks and discharges.


8. CONCLUSIONS

HDC has engaged in consultation with Iwi, and with the wider community, to assist with the identification of a preferred approach to the upgrade of the Foxton municipal wastewater discharge. The use of an area of land on Matakarapa has been identified as the preferred site for a land discharge of treated wastewater, but this preference has not been preferred by all parties to the consultation that has taken place. Tangata whenua have been invited to participate in consultation on this project, and have attended many meetings and site inspections. Presentations have been made by HDC on the implications of a Matakarapa discharge, and written (and oral) feedback on those implications has been invited. Over 20 sites in the general vicinity of Foxton have been considered for the location of a wastewater discharge facility, against requirements that the management of the discharge must be environmentally, socially, culturally and financially sustainable. While the Matakarapa proposal meets environmental, social and financial criteria as well as or better than any other option, there remain cultural perspectives on the proposal upon which agreement has not been reached with tangata whenua. This report lists the statutory provisions relating to managing the effects of activities on tangata whenua values. It compiles an account of the views expressed by tangata whenua on the Matakarapa proposal, analysed into themes in the hope of identifying a way forward with the support and agreement of tangata whenua. While two reported responses offer the prospect that mitigation measures may offer a path towards agreement, there have not been alternative sites proposed that may better meet Maori cultural expectations. The land discharge proposal is assessed against the statutory provisions for the protection of tangata whenua values, and can be shown to meet those provisions. The following conclusions are reached from the consultation with Tangata Whenua:

• Agreement has not been reached on a land discharge site that will meet Tangata Whenua cultural expectations.

• Effects of a land discharge at Matakarapa on river water quality are considered by HDC to be less than minor, although that view is not shared by Tangata Whenua.

• Effects of a land discharge at Matakarapa on mauri and kaimoana

are likewise considered by HDC to be less than minor, especially considering that the proposal is to put the wastewater discharge to land, removing the existing river discharge where the perception of adverse effect is acknowledged. This view, however, is not shared by Tangata Whenua.

• Effects of a land discharge at Matakarapa on sites of significance

are considered by HDC to be able to be avoided, by the identification and avoidance of those sites in the placement and operation of discharge infrastructure. Tangata Whenua have not indicated acceptance of this view.


• Further Cultural Impact Assessment reporting by tangata whenua would be welcome as a means of refining and improving the mitigation measures that may be needed to ensure that cultural values are fully protected by the proposal.


9. REFERENCES

Allen C, Young RA, Gillespie P (Cawthron 2013:A3) Foxton wastewater — estuary assimilative capacity assessment. Prepared for Lowe Environmental Impact. Cawthron Report No. 2440.

Aquanet Consulting Limited (2012:A3) Shannon and Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plants: Assimilative Capacity of the Receiving Environment

Beca and Lowe Environmental Impact (2014:E0) Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Environmental Effects – Foxton Wastewater Discharges

Horowhenua District Council (2012) Foxton Wastewater Treatment System Investigations Status Report

Horowhenua District Council (2015:C6) Foxton Wastewater Discharge – Determination of the Best Practicable Discharge Site

Horowhenua District Council (2015:D5) Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant: Consultation Summary

Horizons Regional Council (2015) Operative One Plan

Lowe Environmental Impact (2014:B1) Summary of Existing Environmental Data for Foxton WWTP

Ministry for the Environment (2010) Maori Values Supplement. Part D of the Making Good Decisions Workbook ME 679

MWH (2010) Foxton Wastewater Land Based Disposal Options Study Progress Report for June 2010

Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (2008) Cultural Impact Assessment for Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plant

Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (2009) Potential Sites for Land Based Disposal of Foxton Wastewater (Letter to MWH)


10. APPENDICES

Appendix A Cultural Site Map (from Te Kenehi Teira’s presentation on 20 May 2014)

APPENDIX A

Cultural Site Map (from Te Kenehi Teira’s presentation

on 20 May 2014)