HOROWHENUA LAKE ACCORD CLEANUP 2013

THE ACCORD PROCESS

With the Council now seeking an Accord to clean up the Lake local Iwi have now banded together to form a community team to assist in the clean up with Raukawa. Some members of the Lake Trustees tried to pass the Accord and have it signed as they were in for jobs of course but those that stuck to their guns like Kaumatua Charles Rudd and Vivienne Taueki who are for the people not themselves blocked the necessary signing which would mean the Council would lead this Accord and could then dictate the outcome or the delays. A meeting on the 14th April 2013 will see a new community committee set up to be part of this process.

Five groups have been invited to take part in the Lake Horowhenua Accord but this needs to be extended as even the majority of the 1511 owners have no say nor allowed to voice their opinions and it is their land. The 5 have a different role in the lake's management yet there has been no indication os the management structure; the monetary fund & the planned clean up.

But first of all to start anything the contamination must be stopped entering the Lake.

Lake Horowhenua Trust: The elected representatives of lake's owners although many owners and we say at least 1200 owners are not even informed or know about this. But as at April 2013 the Lake Trustees are under investigation. The lake, along with a 20 metre strip around its edge, is owned by the owners, the majority of which are of the Mauapoko iwi.

Horizons Regional Council:

The environmental regulatory grants consents for stormwater and wastewater disposal. Horizons also carries out water quality monitoring and weed spraying at the lake and in this regard Jon Roygard is working on.

Horowhenua District Council: is local authority is responsible for bylaws that govern the lake,and suposedly keep clean yet they have done little in fact nothing to relieve the problems of the Lake and should not lead any Accord due to their neglect over 62 years. Blame can not be put on Mayor Duffy as without the likes of Horizons etc, Nathan Guy, DOC these are the ones who must share repsonsibility and they have had many years to support the Council.

Department of Conservation: DOC is responsible for the flora and fauna at the lake but as we have seen thats all thats been done on the Lake. They have re-established native species with Iwi reps on the payroll in and around the lake and the control of pest species.

Lake Horowhenua Domain Board: With representatives of Horowhenua District Council, DOC and the lake trustees, this board manages the lake waters only and the use of the buildings? yet tend to talk about solving issues but has never implemented the clean up process.

In the USA the Environental Protection Agency identified 4 parties creating separate work groups to handle the various aspects of the Great Lake issues which are the same as Lake Horowhenua. We identify 5 parties

• A Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group collected and quantified data on contaminants in sediments and studied the effects these contaminants have on fish and other aquatic life.
• The Risk Assessment/Modeling Group studied risks to humans and wildlife created by existing conditions and compared them to the risks that would result from various possible alternatives avilable for remediating sediment problems.
• The Engineering/Technology Work Group tested and evaluated technologies that might be used to clean up toxics in sediments.
• The Communication/Liaison Work Group collected and disseminated information to citizens about contaminated sediments and provided opportunities for citizens to participate in the work of the program.
• Owner maori group to desseminate the sifting process of taonga and artifacts?

1. Has any testing been done to find out whether this sediment is contaminated? What chemicals did the researchers look for? On what basis did they make these choices?
2. What kind of sampling was done? Were "grab" samples done or was a core taken? Was the core homogenized before being analyzed or was it analyzed in separate layers? How deep was each layer? How deep was the whole core? How deep is unconsolidated material thought to go at this site? How much of that do you think is likely to show anthropogenic effects (human-caused mess)?
3. If testing has been done, what contaminants were found? Are there both organic compounds and heavy metals? Are any of them persistent toxic compounds that are likely to build up in the fatty tissue or muscle of fish or other organisms?
4. What is the physical makeup of sediment at this site (proportion of clay, silt, sand, for instance)? (Contaminants don't bind to sand and so will escape through the water column and disappear. They bind most strongly to clay an somewhat to silt and so can be captured by sediment dredging, disposal and treatment).
5. What disposal options are being considered? On what basis? Short-term economic concerns only or long-term protection that will limit future liability problems?
6. Will dredging be limited to a navigation channel or (in the case of a river or other stream as opposed to open ocean or big lake) will the slopes on either side of the channel be dredged as well to prevent recontamination? Are there high levels of contaminated sediments farther upstream than the proposed dredge site? What is your strategy for preventing recontamination from upstream sediments moving down to cover the dredged area?
7. Is your remediation plan linked to pollution prevention of active sources?
8. What before and after monitoring is planned--both for dredging activities and for storage?
9. Is any habitat restoration proposed in concert with the sediment removal--or as mitigation for the loss of habitat to be caused by the dredging and disposal operation?
10. Have you mapped the erosional and depositional zones in the area to be remediated?
11. What safeguards are in place for minimizing short-term resuspension of contaminants during dredging?
12. Who will carry out the initial work and will owners be involved in employable situations ratehr than outsiders?
13. What budget is available?? and by whom

PROPOSED PLAN CLEANUP

The problem is the toxic sediment on the bottom of the Lake that must be removed and the following is how this can be achieved according to the budget provided. Over the decades, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals--both municipal and industrial wastes and herbicides and pesticides from farm runoff--have mixed with the particles of rock, soil, and decomposing items in the Lake. Little attention has been paid to the toxics hiding in the mud on the bottom. The obvious first priority was stopping the discharge of new contaminants.

COSTS:

Will the required budget be enough to dredge the whole lake with those responsible eg. Council, Horizons DOC, Govt grants budgeting the cleanup as nothing has been mentioned? Would dredging the hot spots first be the better solution to start, then rechecked thus working within the required budget? Where to start first and end, noting the main inlets and outlet being the Hokio Stream.

This whole process could be accomplished using owners and overseen by the necessary authorities. It would also be a workable business for the owners to accomplish the same in other contaminated parts of NEW Zealand as we have a duty to our tipuna. This is another reason why us owners need to play their role in the Accord process and not be left out.

It has been 62 years that Horowhenua Lake has had sediment, sewerage and contaminants from dairy & horticulture in this Lake ? The Lake is choked with weed, sediment and manures from horticulture and dairy farm run offs account for 50% of the water runoff and this Lake is No 107 of a total 114 most contaminated Lakes in NZ by the Ministry of the Environment. Once rich in food sources from mussels to kakahi it has now been reduced to a contaminated mess.

Horizons have studied the fish species in the Lake but this is not the problem. The problem is the Lake is a giant toilet that someone forgot to flush. The Council do not care as they can spend all sorts on removing the weed etc which will do nothing. The real problem is to remove the sludge which is easy but even Max Gibbs the NIWA analyst could not even mention. To us its a rush job of who can get the work and blow it out to 25 years??? and then maybe never.