Jump to content

We need help in protecting Great Barrier Island.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was surprised how much I learned from investing the time to read the report (its long). KM pointed out that I didn’t know exactly what the source areas were so I decided the issue is important enoug

So what ? CO2 represents .4 of a percent of earths atmosphere - or just under 400 parts per million (ppm). Of this 96 /97 % is produced naturally. Man contributes

Where did you get that factual information from. Can you quote your source please?   It seems to be contrary to the NIWA north Island tidal flows observed in the URL link provide by SloopJohnB  pos

Posted Images

Win!

 

The High Court has ruled in their favour quashing a decision from the Environmental Protection Authority, which gave Coastal Resources Limited (CRL) permission to massively increase dumping to 250,000cu/m per year.

Two island groups argued the Authority failed to consult properly with local Māori and complained there was not a single public hearing on Great Barrier.

The High Court has agreed, ordering the Authority to start again and this time to listen to its own Māori Advisory Committee on who to consult.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/404778/great-barrier-residents-win-reprieve-over-dredged-waste-increase

 

I love it when a really simple argument trumps all the specialist reports, complex arguments and convoluted BS.

1) EPA did not consult the locals, i.e. the people their decision will effect,

2) EPA did not hold a single public hearing on the Island.

 

Now they get to start again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good decision by the High Court but be careful what you wish for.

Firstly for those advocating dumping on land the question is where? Soft, unconsolidated marine sediments with very high moisture content is not suitable for building or road fill without time consuming and costly treatment (lime or cement stabilisation). Therefore contractors won’t touch stuff unless required by the client, e.g. POA maintenance dredging that was cement stabilised fill for the Fergusson container terminal extension.

 

Secondly, eliminating the offshore dumping option or at least requiring dumping to move even further offshore will drive up costs for any future marine developments, potentially making them uneconomic. So goodbye to any further marina development, and hello to ongoing berth shortage and Simon Herbert’s marina oligopoly.

 

Having said all that, environmental and economic constraints on further marine development in Auckland might help support Shane Jones’ Northport dreams!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Protect Aotea has won a court case to prevent dumping of toxic waste sludge into the waters around Great Barrier Island, in the Hauraki Gulf. They are now pushing for a policy that offers alternatives to at-sea dumping.



In light of the latest State of the Gulf report, such a policy makes perfect sense and would benefit marine waters around all our coastline.


http://ow.ly/AAvf50yxXdA


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good decision by the High Court but be careful what you wish for.

Firstly for those advocating dumping on land the question is where? Soft, unconsolidated marine sediments with very high moisture content is not suitable for building or road fill without time consuming and costly treatment (lime or cement stabilisation). Therefore contractors won’t touch stuff unless required by the client, e.g. POA maintenance dredging that was cement stabilised fill for the Fergusson container terminal extension.

 

Secondly, eliminating the offshore dumping option or at least requiring dumping to move even further offshore will drive up costs for any future marine developments, potentially making them uneconomic. So goodbye to any further marina development, and hello to ongoing berth shortage and Simon Herbert’s marina oligopoly.

 

Having said all that, environmental and economic constraints on further marine development in Auckland might help support Shane Jones’ Northport dreams!

 

Where is your evidence that increased costs will result in goody to further marina developments. New Marina's have always cost more every time one is built, some with expensive all weather surrounding sea walls. Marina's built 20 years ago were considerably cheaper to build then compared to what they are today. Inflation the general increase in wealth to the middle classes and the increasing numbers in the wealthy classification pushes the demand for marina berths plus the increase in overseas visiting middle class yacht owners. To argue that dumping toxic waste or other polluting of our coastal and our exclusive economic zone waters is desirable so Marina's and such facilities can be developed is nonsense and selfish. Our fish stocks, species, numbers, and safe seafood to eat, clean and safe waters to swim in, sail, water ski, and other activities such as scuba diving, snorkley, marine reserves are far more important no matter what the cost monetary wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...