The Dome Valley Dump – explained
What is going on?
Waste Management New Zealand wishes to build a 60h landfill in Dome Valley, in Wayby Valley, north of Auckland. The plans for the dump were recently green-lighted by a panel of independent commissioners with 400 conditions being put in place which are meant to mitigate a number of issues, including ecological and cultural impacts of the dump. A strong opposition movement has formed over these plans.
How did Waste Management get the land in the first place?
In 2018, Waste Management was granted permission by the Overseas Investment Office to purchase 1000 hectares of land in Dome Valley. The Department of Conservation opposed the sale, citing that it would end up endangering wildlife and the overall environment of the area.
Waste Management in their application gave reasons why approval should be made. One of them being that they were a highly reputable company and declining such an investment might have an adverse impact on New Zealand receiving further investment from China.
Ironically, Eugenie Sage, who at the time was the Conservation as well as the Land Information Minister and a Green MP, granted the approval for the land sale for the landfill.
Sage defended her actions by saying that the their were benefits to the landfill, including creating 50 to 100 jobs.
What are their plans for Dome Valley?
Source: https://bit.ly/3hDEu25
If they get the go head, Waste Management will build a 60h dump. The site that they have brought consists of two blocks of land, the eastern block of land has been a commercial pine forest since the 1970s, the other block, pasture farmland, plantation forest and regenerative native bush. This is known as Springhill.
The plan is to create the landfill on the eastern block, in one of several valleys that are present there. The forest will be harvested and the land evacuated, lined and a landfill created. In this zone, there will also be leachate treatment facilities, generators, and buildings for staff. The area will also remain a commercial forest. Springhill, according to Waste Management, will have limited changes and no waste will be placed on this block.
This site was chosen after a thorough technical analysis of the area. It was deemed suitable due to its access to SH1, and the fact that there is a 2km buffer between the proposed landfill and the Hōteo River and a 1km buffer to the nearest residential residence.
Who is Waste Management exactly?
Waste Management is owned by a Chinese multinational company, the Beijing Capital group, which is a state owned enterprise. They bought Waste Management in 2014 and are now New Zealand’s biggest waste collection and recycling company.
Who’s rubbish will be going to the Dome?
Well, Waste Management’s tagline for this venture, seems to be along the lines of ‘they are meeting Auckland’s needs’. So the dump will indeed take in Auckland’s waste. At the moment, we send around 1.6 million tonnes of waste to the landfill in Auckland.
But also rubbish from New Caledonia may make its way to this proposed dump. This is due to the fact that Waste Management has international contracts for the treatment and on occasion, disposal of waste from New Caledonia.
Who made the decision for the dump to go ahead?
A panel of independent commissioners, Alan Watson, Wayne Donovan, David Mead and Michael Parsonson. Four white men. Diversity at its finest. Sheena Tepania, was the chair of this panel. The vote was 4-1, with the only individual opposing being Sheena.
Why did they greenlight it?
Because they deemed it an important piece of infrastructure needed for the growing population of Auckland.
“The proposal by Waste Management to place the landfill in a steeply sided valley at the centre of a very large site, with good design, construction and operational management, and extensive environmental mitigation, offsets and compensation were key features of the application that weighed in its favour,” their decision stated.
The commissioners were satisfied that cultural values and ecology concerns would be managed, that the leachate produced would be contained and disposed of, and that the noise and air issues would be controlled.
The overall conclusion by the commissioner board is that the main benefit of this new landfill would be to provide for Aucklander’s future needs.
And with their 400 conditions placed on their application, they felt that ecological, cultural, and community concerns were covered.
As one journalist put it, the tangible won over the intangible. Economic progress overrode cultural and community values and the environment.
Why do we need another dump in the first place?
Redvale Landfill is going to reach its capacity in under ten years. It currently takes half of Auckland’s 1.6 million tonnes of waste, annually. The other landfills being, Whitford Landfill as well as the Waikato Landfill at Hampton Downs.
Enter, Dome Valley. Dome Valley will be set to take in the same capacity of RedVale, around 800,000 tonnes annually.
Why is there opposition?
Well, for many reasons. Ecological concerns being one.
The dump is going into a space that has important waterways running through it.14km of these will be covered up for the making of the dump. And as one of the opponents to the dump put it, to cover up this important ‘veins of the earth’, we are essentially suffocating the land.
Furthermore, if there is any breach in the dumps linings, leachate could spill into the Hōteo River, which runs through the land and make its way to the Kaipara Harbour. A harbour that is already heavily polluted by sedimentation largely from nearby dairy, sheep and beef farms.
The area is also home to many native wildlife, including the Horchestor frog and long-tailed bat, who may not be too happy about their habit being turned into a dump.
There are also concerns over the increase in daily traffic on State Highway 1 with dump trucks having to use this stretch of road daily. That stretch of road in Dome Valley has been labeled as one of the deadliest roads in the North Island.
Cultural concerns are also a huge issue. Something I will go into further down.
What is leachate?
Leachate forms when water comes into contact with the decomposing waste inside the landfill.
This can be very harmful to the environment if it comes into contact with groundwater, soil and surface water. Leachate can be washed away by rainwater into nearby water sources and cause harm to the ecosystem.
Below is a table of the possible effects that Leachate can have on water sources. This was pulled from a report released by the Ministry of Environment.
A Guide to the Management of Closing and Closed Landfills in New Zealand
At Waste Management’s Redvale Landfill they try to prevent any of this leaking into the surrounding environment by placing liners under the landfill and using a drainage system, which funnels out the leachate to be then vaporized. They vaporize 18000 tonnes of leachate a year into steam.
But how long lasting are these liners?
The proposed lining system at the Dome Valley Dump are composed of three main components. A clay or mudstone liner, a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), and a High Density Polyethylene layer (HDPL).
There have been conflicting accounts on the lifespan of these components.
In a letter addressed to Northern Advocate, Waste Management wrote that the HDPL later has a estimated life of 400-750 years, while the only reference to the longevity of the clay and GCL layer is that they are naturally occurring and they have been around for thousands of years.
Another projection was shared by Tim Nickels, managing director of Waste Management.
He assures the public that the “leachate is produced for a significantly shorter period of time than the life expectancy of the various liners. It is also extracted from the landfill throughout its life and aftercare period, further reducing the risk after the landfill is completed”. And that the geosynethic clay liners can last up to 100 years while their polythene liner have a life expectancy of around 200 years.
In a report, titled A Guide to the Management of Closing and Closed Landfills, released by the Ministry of Environment, it stated that “All landfills experience some degree of leachate loss to the surrounding environment. At more modern landfills, this occurs mainly as a result of slow seepage through the liner (often over many decades).”
If it is decades or even centuries before the safeguards falter, is not really the point. What is the point is that this dump will have long-lasting impacts beyond our lifetime. Even with all the safeguards and liners in place now.
Just look at the Fox River dump disaster, where an old dump after flooding spilled thousands of kilograms of waste down the Fox River in 2019. This took hundreds of man hours to clean as well as millions of dollars in government funding. That dump when it was built would have been suitable for that era - and perhaps they did not think about future generations having to clean up rubbish strewn across beaches and waterways. Perhaps they didn't think someone else would be picking through their old butter packaging and Pepsi soda cans, decades on.
The Dome Valley is also susceptible to flooding events, which makes this concern of the landfill being compromised even more pressing.
A landfill is not a magic portal that zaps rubbish out of existence. It is still there. Even if it has been buried, the rubbish is still there. It takes many many years for some waste, such as plastic bottles or nappies, to degrade. A nappy takes around 500 years if you were interested. And a disaster such as a flooding, or earthquake could see decade old nappies and condoms and plastic strewn everywhere. Not to mention the leaking of toxins from the landfill poisoning the surrounding environment.
A piece of infrastructure such as this casts a big shadow into our future. And rhetoric such as, it doesn't matter because it won’t impact me, or I won't see that disaster in my lifetime, is not acceptable or indeed responsible.
Who is Fight the Tip, Save the Dome?
Fight the Tip, Save the Dome is a group opposing the creation of the dump. It is made of local residents, iwi, and concerned citizens. Michelle Carmichael is one of the leaders of this group.
Who else opposes the dump?
The Auckland Conservation Board. The chairwoman, Nicola MacDonald, has been vocal in her opposition. MacDonald finds it quite ludicrous to put a dump in a place which is home to endangered species, including the New Zealand long-tailed bat, Australasian bittern and Hochstetter's frog.
“There are species present at the site that are already endangered, and the board is extremely concerned that some species will be lost from the property and adjacent habitats, even with the best management and mitigation programmes.”
“We are talking about pristine land being turned into landfill, at a time when we should be working towards waste minimisation and more sustainable waste to energy option”
Local iwi, Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua are vehemently opposed to the landfill plans.
And believe it or not, before the commissioner hearing, the Auckland Council opposed the dump. Mark Ross, an independent consultant planner, last year recommended that the Auckland Council refuse the resource consent application.
Ross ended up being swayed by rhetoric and promises from Waste Management and changed his recommendation last month at the independent commissioner board hearing.
Kaipara District Council is also against the landfill being put in their backyard. Kaipara Mayor, Dr. Jason Smith, said that each of the elected councillors in the Kaipara district voted in favour of his submission against the landfill. Dr Jason Smith shared in last years Resource Consent meeting for the landfill that,
“For Auckland, it is the edge of its patch, but for Kaipara it is at the centre. It is an out of sight, out of mind mentality,” he said.
“Meanwhile, the fragile soils, high rainfall and flood risk are risks that are specific to the site.”
The Department of Conservation and Forest and Bird also oppose the dump.
Will the wildlife be OK if a dump is built at Dome Valley?
Who knows? The report carried out by Ross outlined that the true impacts on wildlife would likely go unrealised which he deemed unacceptable. But, now he has changed his opinion, so maybe this doesn't really matter.
And how can we know the true extent of the impact on wildlife. We won't track and monitor every individual animal that calls Dome Valley home. We won't know how the pine forest being pulled down impacts birds, skinks, and insects. We won't know how the close proximity of a dump to their waterways impacts the eels in the streams and rivers. We won't know how the long-tailed bat will cope with having to flitter and flutter over a mountain of rubbish, and not trees. Or the impact of the dump on the marine life at Kaipara Harbour
How can we truly understand what it will be like for the wildlife that call this place home will react or survive? I am sure, if we made your current three bedroom 1.5 bathroom home into a big stinking dump, you may be upset. Well, I can't say what effect the dump will have on the wildlife in an exact quantitative way, but I can safely to say, it will not be good.
What outcome does the opponents of the dump want?
For the dump to not be built at Dome Valley.
How can you help?
Donating to their Give a Little is one way you can help out. These donations will help them cover court costs. The link is below.
Other ways you can help out is sharing information and news about the issue, talk about it with friends and family, on social media, on your blog. Just keep the issue alive and at the forefront of people’s attention. Also sharing their Give a Little is a great way to help.
But isn't Auckland meant to be zero waste by 2040? Why do we need another dump?
Auckland has aspirations to be zero waste and divert as much as they can from landfills by 2040. So why on earth are they giving the go ahead for a new dump to be built?
If Dome Valley goes ahead, it will be operating under a 35 year resource consent and take around 4 years to build and start operating.
Well over the zero waste 2040 benchmark goal.
So what gives?
To go Zero Waste in under 20 years, with a city that at present is generating nearly two million tonnes of rubbish a year, and the population increasing not decreasing, seems like a big stretch. It can be expected that this amount of rubbish production will not significantly decrease any time soon. So, the line of thought is during this transition that Auckland wishes to undergo, it is important to have suitable waste facilities that can dispose of the rubbish.
They went through the Resource Management process, so what's the problem?
Consultation with iwi was inadequate, nor was there adequate understanding on what this area means to local iwi and the community at large.
Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua contend that the placement of a landfill within the landscape is a 'scar on Papatūānuku' and will cause a “diminished relationship with the land, weakened mana, a significant burden for them and future generations, an inability to exercise kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga, bringing shame on mana whenua."
Sheena Tepania, the chair of the independent panel, in her written response to this application, wrote that Te Awa Hōteo and Kaipara Moana were “seen not just as physical resources but as entities in their own right — as ancestors, gods, whānau — that iwi have an obligation to care for and protect”.
Water or wai is a taonga (treasure).
Each body of water carries a life force, a mauri. Rivers or awa are the veins of Papatūānuku, Earth Mother, and the water in them is her lifeblood.
This is also the fact that gathering food from the ocean is an important practice. For the Kaipara Harbour, kai moana is an important source of food. If toxins were to leak into this zone and contaminate the marine life here, that would put this to an end.
So for this landfill to be placed in important waterways and near the ocean is tainting the relationship that Maori have with the land.
The amount of public opposition to the landfill also poses a significant point of emphasis. Why is the independent commission board granting permission to something that has such strong public opposition? 981 submissions were made during the public consultation period, only 10 of these were for the dump. This is on top of a petition that was signed by more than 3000 people and a Give A Little page that has raised around $10,000 as of the date of writing this piece.
Despite the overwhelming public opposition to the dump, it still was approved. By a table of four men whose decision has little to on impact on their life or cultural identity. Seems all a bit unfair doesn't it?
What's happening in Tirohia?
Waste Management is also looking to expand their Tirohia landfill to be able to take in an extra three million cubic metres of rubbish. Iwi, which disputed the original building of the landfill on their whenua maunga Rae o Te Papa 21 years ago, are now fighting to stop Waste Management expanding the landfill. Despite signing a memorandum of understanding with the original owners of the landfill, HG Leach Ltd, which stipulated that future landfills would not be built on that block of land and within a 10km radius of the summit of Rae o Te Papa, Waste Management is in the process of trying to secure a resource consent to expand the landfill. The decision for this now lies in the hands of an independent commissions panel. It will be interesting to see what way this decision goes, will it follow Auckland’s lead and fold to Waste Management NZ or side with important cultural values that the land has for local iwi.
This is not directly connected to what's happening at Dome Valley, but it is interesting to see what Waste Management is doing in other locations and that there seems to be a pattern of disregard for mana whenua.
What now?
Save the Tip is filing an appeal for this decision with the Environment Court and has engaged the lawyer, Andrew Braggins to help them in that fight.
While Ngāti Whātua will also be lodging their own appeal with the court and they will be having hui meetings over the next coming weeks with hupu, to invite anyone else who wishes to join their appeal application.
End musings
We will be dead in a few hundred years, but the repercussions of this dump will live on. As the mayor of Kaipara, Dr Jason Smith, put it, This is the type of legacy we are leaving behind for future generations. Giant scars on our land, mountains that are not our sacred maungas anymore, rather knolls of rubbish and waste, polluted waterways, dead wildlife, stumps where trees used to spring forth. We are leaving a legacy of destruction and we are going towards it in a sleepy daze. There are still some standing up for the land - and making councils and corporations such as Waste Management accountable.
When the voice of the protester goes hoarse and quiet and defeated, that is when we have truly lost.
Until then, we carry on as normal. One step at a time. Fighting for papatuanuku. Always.