final report part c - appendix c: wastewater overflows in flood...

Trim 14/893956

MAYORAL FLOOD TASKFORCE

F i n a l R e p o r t

P a r t C - A p p e n d i x C :

W a s t e w a t e r O v e r f l o w s

i n F l o o d E v e n t s

A u g u s t 2 0 1 4

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 20 459

Trim 14/893956 Page | C.1

Document Control

Document title: Mayoral Flood Taskforce Temporary Flood Defence Measures

Final Report – Part C: Appendix C, Wastewater Overflows in Flood Events

Revision: Final Rev A

Date: 8 August 2014

TRIM ref: 14/893956

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review

Final Draft 4 July 2014 Final draft for internal review only Peter Christensen Mike Gillooly

Tom Parsons

Sylvia Maclaren

Final Rev A 8 August 2014 Final report for distribution Peter Christensen John Mackie

List of Contributors

Mike Gillooly Christchurch City Council Stuart Sandy Aecom

Terry Howes Christchurch City Council Andy Gibson Aecom

John Mackie Christchurch City Council Peter Christensen Aurecon

Helen Beaumont Christchurch City Council Jeanette White Aurecon

Leah McBey Christchurch City Council Regan Smith Aurecon

Dean Ewen Christchurch City Council Anna Lindgren Aurecon

Tim Ayers Christchurch City Council Thomas Chabanne Aurecon

Peter Wehrmann Christchurch City Council Irfon Jones Aurecon

Paul Dickson Christchurch City Council Jan Kupec Aurecon

Stephen Adam Christchurch City Council Zoe Pletz Aurecon

Graham Harrington Christchurch City Council Tom Revell Aurecon

Paul Cottam Christchurch City Council Leon Gerrard Aurecon

Luke Merryweather Christchurch City Council Cameron Irvine Aurecon

Lisa Perry Christchurch City Council Camilla Gibbons Aurecon

Dave Rowlands Christchurch City Council Richard Simpson Aurecon

Tony Liu Christchurch City Council Jonathan Broome Bond Construction Management

David Pinkney Christchurch City Council Vance Perrin City Care

Tom Parsons Innovate Consulting Ltd Brian Keown City Care

Sylvia Maclaren Jacobs Helen Shaw Environment Canterbury

Gareth Taylor Jacobs Matt Thomas Garage Consulting Company

Ben Fountain Jacobs Kate Dawkings GHD

Matt Shepherd Jacobs Jalan McGrory GHD

Matt Bot Jacobs Julia Riding GHD

AJ Weir Jacobs Matt van der Peet GHD

Jim Bell Jacobs Stephen Bensberg L G Consulting Limited

Dave Compton-Moen Jacobs Chris Maguire MWH

Ramana Sonthi Jacobs Simon Dellis Opus

Matt Prosser Jacobs Mark Groves Opus


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.2

Disclaimer

This report contains technical information prepared by the Mayoral Flood Taskforce. As of 4 July 2014

the Christchurch City Council has yet to make any decisions on the report, and the matters contained

in the report. The report was prepared on the basis of the best available information at the time. That

information may be subject to change (in whole or in part) and the Council does not represent or

warrant the completeness or accuracy of the information within the report.

Christchurch City Council has no control over and is not responsible or in any way liable, to any

person or entity that chooses to rely upon the information, or for any errors, omissions, or

inaccuracies, whether arising from negligence or otherwise or for any consequences arising

therefrom.

Any person or entity wishing to rely on the information is advised to seek independent advice as may

be necessary.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.3

Appendix C Wastewater Overflows in Flood Events

Background information

The Christchurch wastewater network drains to a single wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at Bromley near the Heathcote Estuary. All wastewater within Christchurch drains to this point either under gravity via pipework, or pumped via pressure pipes.

Three key trunk mains, the Western Interceptor, Southern Relief and Northern Relief, convey flows to Pump Station 1 (PS1) and PS11, the two largest terminal pump stations, and from here onto the WWTP. As the names of these trunk sewers suggest, they were constructed at various points to deal with population growth, more stringent regulation and ever increasing wastewater flows. PS20, PS36 and PS15 are also key terminal pump stations which convey flows to the WWTP.

All Banks Peninsula settlements have separate wastewater systems draining to their respective WWTP’s. Little River has no reticulation system or WWTP, as the residents use septic tanks.

Existing wastewater studies

The Christchurch wastewater system has been modelled a number of times over the years. More recently the Council has developed a post-quake hydraulic model of the Christchurch wastewater network. This model was calibrated to numerous flow monitors and provides good data on network performance. The post-quake model build, calibration and network performance are well documented, and are being refined and updated as the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) work is captured and system knowledge is enhanced by additional flow monitoring. Full recalibration of the post-SCIRT model will be done over the winter of 2016 as the SCIRT part of the sewer rebuild nears completion.

The Lyttelton and Akaroa systems are not as well documented, but are being modelled hydraulically to improve understanding of each network.

The Council automatically and continuously monitors 20 overflow sites. These sites are the most likely to operate in larger storm events. The monitoring systems provide alarms and data on the overflows.

Wastewater flooding history

Wastewater overflow issues are caused by stormwater and increased groundwater getting into the network. This can result in wastewater overflowing at designed overflow points, or if these designed overflow points are no longer of sufficient capacity surcharging of the sewers occurs and overflow into the street occurs, and beyond that overflow on to private property may occur. With extensive surface flooding in a long duration rain event most of the excess water entry into the sewer system occurs through vented manholes and flooded property discharging down gulley traps that are below the flood level.

Wastewater overflows were built to provide the least adverse effect when the system surcharges in an emergency of excess flow situation. These overflows are a formal point of overflow to a stormwater pipe, for example, to stop flooding into the street or private properties, particularly in an emergency. The primary goal is to protect people from coming into to contact with wastewater by preventing discharge onto private property or on to public road.

The Christchurch wastewater network suffers overflows during longer rainfalls, such as the event on 5 March where rainfall depths were significant. The network shows little to no response to shorter, higher intensity rainfalls. Several factors drive the response to longer events:

� Deep surface ponding can cover vented manholes and private gulley traps.

� Longer events saturate the catchment’s upper soils and raise groundwater levels. This increases pressure on deep gravity lines and more water leaks into them increasing flows

� The scale and extent of the network is such that in shorter rainfalls extensive ponding and ground saturation do not occur.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.4

Earthquake damage to the wastewater network

The Christchurch earthquakes resulted in significant damage to the wastewater system, including to some pumping stations and a large amount of pipework. Large sections of network were also inundated with sand and silt through soil liquefaction, which reduced pipe capacity, blocked pipes and wore out pumps.

Elevated groundwater or reduced land levels combined with widespread pipe damage also increased average flows in the network by up to 60%. . This has greatly reduced capacity in wet weather events and has increased overflow volume and frequency.

Differential land settlement has reduced pipe gradients or created dips in the network which have adversely affected flow capacity and increased maintenance needs through more sedimentation in the lines and increased blockage.

Key drainage infrastructure

Wastewater infrastructure relevant to Christchurch floods are wastewater overflows, manhole covers (particularly if vented) and private gully traps. They are sources of flood water entering and exiting the wastewater system. There are about 260 vented manholes within the documented extent of the 5 March flood.

There are over 100 wastewater overflow points designed into the wastewater network, mostly for emergencies and will not operate during a flood. However, there are some 20 to 40 that are known to operate and are a source of stormwater contamination. In severe rain events such as experienced this year there will also have been overflows at street level through manhole tops and vents due to surcharging. In a small number of cases there will also be overflows from gulley traps onto private property.

Overflows in the areas assessed by the Taskforce are below in Table J.1.

Table J.1 Key wastewater overflows

Area Overflows

Flockton Basin PS6 and PS53 overflows operated during the 5 March 2014 flood and

are likely to have operated for the 18 March and 29 April events.

PS1/21, known as Grassmere, is a large overflow upstream on a trunk

sewer and also operated during the 5 March, 18 March and 29 April

rainfall events as well as earlier even events such as August 2012 and

June 2013.

Heathcote Valley All overflows are downstream of reported 5 March flooding

Lower Heathcote Valley Overflows known to have operated on 5 March include PS60/1, PS23/1,

PS18/1 and PS18/2. These overflows also operated for the 18 March

and 29 April rainfall events as well as earlier events such as August

2012 and June 2013.

Sumner & Redcliffs PS34/1 and PS33/1 overflows are known to have operated on 5 March.

It is not known if they overflowed on the 18 March or 29 April events.

Other overflows along coast line and in the Avon and Heathcote river

catchments will also contribute to water quality in the Heathcote Estuary.

Lower Avon During the 5 March, 19 March and 29 April events PS1/21, PS40/1,

PS1/11 and PS36/2 operated. Overflows PS1/20 and PS1/19 in

Riccarton may also have operated. Further, overflows PS6 and PS53

are also likely to have operated.

South Shore PS37/1 is the only overflow in the area and is not known to have

operated. However the estuary may be contaminated from all the

overflows upstream (see Lower Avon and Flockton Basin above).

Lyttelton, Little River and Akaroa Lyttelton WWTP is known to overflow after heavy rainfall, as is Akaroa’s

WWTP, with both operating during the March 5th event. Little River has

no reticulated wastewater, being on septic tanks.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.5

Issues

The main wastewater issue in floods is contamination. As a public health risk it can contaminate properties and sections and is an unpleasant experience for those affected. NIWA

1 studied health

risks from wastewater overflows, concluding that overflows elevate risk, and noting that the rivers themselves also become health risks. Flooding of watercourses can also prevent wastewater overflows from operating, causing upstream manholes to surcharge into the street.

Flood waters can contain visible waste ‘solids’ such as tissue or sanitary products, which are then left on the ground or on properties as flood waters recede.

Key issues are:

� Long rainfall events saturate the catchment leading to heavier flows

� Surface flooding enters the wastewater network and increases flow rates

� Parts of the wastewater network cannot cope with the increasing flows, resulting in surcharging of the network and overflow operation

� Most flood-affected areas contain or are downstream of wastewater overflows that may be operating

� Contamination of waterways and flood waters due to wastewater overflows operating

� Flood waters are not safe for human contact regardless of wastewater contamination

� Wastewater overflows sometimes cannot operate due to flooded waterways causing wastewater manholes to surcharge

� Surcharging wastewater manholes pushing wastewater into the street and flood waters

� Surcharging private gully traps pushing wastewater into private sections,

� Visible solids in flood waters that are left on the ground as flood water recedes

� Health risk to those returning home or coming into contact with flood waters

� Public distress over contamination, particularly if solids are visible

� Health risks to the public, particularly the more vulnerable members of the community

March 2014 flood event

During the 5 March event 20 overflows are known to have operated and several others may also have operated, though this was not observed. Further, there would have been several manhole and gully trap overflows triggered due to surcharging. While some were recorded during the March event, it is likely that many more actually occurred, but were not reported or were hidden by flood waters.

While wastewater contamination itself doesn’t necessarily cause physical damage, it does create a public health risk, particularly to vulnerable people.

It can also leave sections and properties contaminated after the flood and may leave wastewater solids in parts of the catchment. Visible fragments of toilet paper for example, were reported by the media in a later flood.

1 Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment associated with sewer discharges to the Avon and Heathcote River

catchments, NIWA Client Report HAM2009-158, October 2009.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.6

Contamination adds to residents’ distress as they are trying to cope with flooding. It makes the return home less appealing, knowing the house may be contaminated with wastewater. If homeowners are less likely to return home or continue living in a flood prone area, this in turn damages the community.

In addition, overflows and flood water contamination also affect the environment, amenity, recreational value and food gathering in an area, and is culturally offensive.

Current Response Procedures

Council operates its overflows under an operative consent which until earthquake repairs are completed and enforcement agreement is in place with Ecan.. A part of the consent is an Overflow Response Plan agreed with Community and Public Health and Ecan. Along with this, it has invested in a system to allow real time monitoring of key overflows and is continuing to expand its understanding of the network hydraulics, and the impact of stormwater flooding on unmonitored overflows.

Council procedures focus on monitored overflows or Customer Service Requests (CSRs). The response plan includes putting up contamination warning signs, sampling water quality and clean-up once the wastewater overflow has stopped. The clean-up comprises a walkover along affected waterways removing offending material and disinfecting areas where solids have been present. The Council web site is also updated with overflow information when they occur.

Where a ratepayer has reported wastewater on their property, a clean-up crew is sent out to clean and disinfect the property / section. Council notifies a list of stakeholders, including some community groups. Call centre staff are also advised and the communication team is notified when any overflows occur.

Current schemes in progress

There are several schemes underway or being investigated to:

� reduce overflow operation

� respond to wet weather

� repair quake damage

� accommodate growth

� improve safety

These include:

� The Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) rebuild – the worst hit areas are being rebuilt, in some cases with more resilient systems less prone to groundwater infiltration, and other less damaged areas are being repaired. The SCIRT rebuild is expected to significantly reduce network overflows and volumes however it is unlikely that repairs and renewal will reduce the overflow frequency and volume to pre-earthquake levels.

� Manhole covers – some manholes prone to lifting are being fixed closed or fitted with a safety grill. This is a safety measure to reduce the risk of someone falling into a manhole with a dislodged cover.

� Manhole vents – workers are identifying vented manholes in areas of potential flooding and are trialling blocking them with plastic to reduce inflow and a more permanent program of blocking vents in known flood prone areas is being implemented. However, vents are there to release hydrogen sulphide, and there may be long term financial costs if there is increased damage from hydrogen sulphide attacks on infrastructure.

� Upgrades recently completed that have reduced the overflows include the Colombo Street Diversion, PM 105, and the Wairakei Diversion which is under construction.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.7

� Planned upgrades – there are several upgrade projects underway or planned through SCIRT or the Council to improve network performance or accommodate growth. These are projects such as the Riccarton Sewer Upgrade, and Grassmere Overflow Storage.

� Gully traps –Council intends to trial a form of non-return valve on gully traps that allows wastewater to overflow out, necessary to protect the inside of the property when there is a blockage, but that greatly reduces flood water flowing into the wastewater network.

� Full wet weather and dry weather flow calibration of the post SCIRT model will be carried out in 2016 as the SCIRT rebuild of the network nears completion.

� Flap gates – new internal rubber check valves have been installed on many of the key wastewater overflow pipes to replace older flap valve and prevent reverse flow of flood waters into the network when debris becomes lodged under the flap. The programme is still on-going and aims to eventually cover all wastewater overflows.

Options Constraints

The key constraint is the scale of the work needed to eliminate stormwater entry into the wastewater network and the consequent wastewater overflows. Every large city in the world that has developed over 100 years or more has sewer overflows or combined sewer overflows (CSO’s). It is not possible for Christchurch to achieve a “no overflow” situation given the city’s topography and history as a swamp. There will always be some overflow in extreme events. Some overflows will always operate during rainfall as significant as that on 5 March 2014, as that exceeded the wastewater network planned level of service. There may always be contamination of flood waters from other sources as well, such as flood water surcharging private connections via gully traps or flowing through manhole covers, if that excess flow entering the network subsequently exits the network further downstream

Costly upgrades are needed to resolve the network-wide issues and their implementation would take years due to the scale of work required. Therefore in the short term it has to be accepted that flood waters are always likely to become contaminated. However, there are some options that could reduce the inflow of flood waters into the wastewater network and make the experience less distressing for residents of flood prone areas.

Opportunities

The Council emergency response policy could consider:

� Reviewing current procedures for post-flooding cleanup of wastewater solids. In areas facing large insurance excesses and until longer term solutions are in place, Council may consider providing guidance and advice about access to funding for post-flooding clean-up

� Include methods to reduce significant inflow such as sealing manhole vents and flood prone gulley traps to reduce the stormwater entry into the sewer network and thereby reduce the potential for flood waters to become contaminated

� Screen solids at the overflows to aid the clean-up once floodwaters have receded. Note that Council is required under the current consent to “assess” each overflow site for potential screening. Council has agreement with ECan to delay this until after the flow calibration in 2016 as by then there will be a better picture of overflow frequency volume and location. Screens are under consideration at some sites already but are a complex matter as blinding of screens can cause significant other issues.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.8

Potential solutions

The following options have been identified.

Canterbury District Health Board FAQs

The Canterbury District Health Board has published on its website advice on avoiding risks from contaminated flood waters.

Reduce Inflow

Reducing the flow of floodwaters into the wastewater network may reduce the potential for contaminating flood waters. This can be done in a reasonable time and cost using these methods:

� Installation of non-return valves at gully traps in flood prone areas.. This allows gully traps to overflow in emergencies to protect the internal property and prevents high rates of flood water flowing into the wastewater network.

� Blocking of vented manholes – in Christchurch approximately half the manholes have vents to allow air in and out of the network as it fills and drains and to ensure low levels of hydrogen sulphide. However, once roads are flooded, the vents allow water to flow into the network. The Council has already tried blocking flood-prone vents by placing plastic sheeting under the vent grate. Proposals are being developed to more permanently block the vents subject to inundation. However, vents are there to release hydrogen sulphide, and there may be long term financial costs if there is increased damage from hydrogen sulphide attacks on infrastructure.

� Continue with the installation of flap valves on wastewater overflows

Reduce solids

Wastewater solids, such as sanitary products, tissue paper, fat, faeces and other such material are a highly visible indicator of contamination. Such material upsets residents and makes for a more difficult and costly clean up after the flood. Therefore any measures that could reduce solids would be of benefit and would upset residents less. To reduce solids the Council should continue to assess the suitability of the larger overflow points for automatic screening devices realising that until the inundation of some areas is resolved there will also be the informal overflows through manhole tops that will not be screened.

In general the floatable solids are trapped in manhole tops when the system becomes surcharged and the heavier settleable solids remain at pipe level while overflow discharge level is normally below the water surface but well above pipe invert. The use of manually raked screens or CopaSac’s is not considered an appropriate solution in small over locations as the blinding of the screens and filling of the CopaSacs can quickly result in overflow out the top of nearby manholes rather than discharge to the waterway.

Council Response Procedures

The Council currently has an agreed, documented and comprehensive procedure for responding to overflows, which are generally followed well. However, they relate to waterways affected by overflows known to have operated. They do not extend to areas that have been flooded away from the immediate vicinity of the waterway, such as Flockton Basin, Sumner and Redcliffs or other areas without monitored overflows.

For individual property clean-ups Council relies on residents calling in with a Customer Service Request (CSR) about wastewater contamination, at which a clean-up crew is sent out.

However many residents do not call the Council and the wastewater operations team may not be aware of properties that have been internally flooded. The scale of clean-up is also limited, with inside the house clean-up jobs being left to insurers. However insurers may not be able to respond quickly enough to decontaminate a house in a reasonable time, or the most flood-prone properties are now subject to large excesses.


Trim 14/893956 Page | C.9

From reviewing overflow response procedures it is evident that:

� land drainage and wastewater operations teams need to be notified of flooded properties,

� it should be assumed that all flood waters could be contaminated whether there is visible evidence of sewage contamination or not,

� relying on insurance companies to clean up properties may be difficult where people now have large excesses.

To strengthen the current procedures we have identified the following options:

� The list of notified parties should be extended to include flood prone communities not currently included including the Flockton Basin Residents Association.

� Dedicating a person at City Care to manage the post overflow / flooding clean-up and disinfection work.

Council may wish to consider being more active cleaning up properties in the most vulnerable areas. Instead of waiting for a CSR to come in, clean-up should be directly offered to those known to have been affected. This could be done by liaising with the community spokesperson for each area, or via direct contact if the Council holds their contact details. A rapid and active response would be seen positively and may make life more bearable for those affected. It may be worth discussing this with insurance companies for less vulnerable properties. However in areas such as the Flockton Basin where large insurance excesses are being applied or where people are uninsured and unable to pay Council may consider providing guidance and advice about access to funding for post-flooding clean-up.

Internal property flooding should be the first priority, particularly for vulnerable families, followed by section clean-up and then waterway corridors.

Changing the overflow response procedures as proposed would add responsibilities to the wastewater operations team, which has limited financial and human resources. Therefore management and funding need to be considered. It may be best managed by the land drainage team or a joint response team in the short term until longer term solutions are actioned.

A Council staff member and contractor could be assigned to a specific catchment. They would liaise between the land drainage and wastewater operations teams within Council and manage the response. This should ideally go beyond wastewater contamination and include evacuation, temporary flood alleviation measures, road closures and subsequent clean up, including litter and wastewater solids. Each catchment manager needs training and a check list of actions so they have a clear plan in order of priority. This would need to be considered in conjunction with the policy and procedures for specific catchments being developed with this report, which will propose similar measures.


COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014

REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

7 AUGUST 2014

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION (1.) TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

Contact Contact Details

Executive Leadership Team Member responsible:

Chief Planning Officer

Officer responsible: Strategic Policy Unit Manager Y 941 6430

Author: Siobhan Storey

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 This report provides comment on a petition to the Council from “The Renewables

Motueka” group requesting the Council adopt the group’s petition on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The Council directed staff at the 24 April 2014 Council meeting to prepare a report on the petition for this committee.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is an Asia Pacific regional free trade

agreement between 12 countries including New Zealand, currently in negotiations. 2.2 There is mixed support from the business community and the wider community for what is

understood to be the content of the TPP and its economic, environmental and social impacts. The Renewables Motueka petition reflects a view that the TPP will have a negative impact.

2.3 The content of the draft TPP is not publicly available as it is still subject to negotiation.

Community groups opposing the agreement state their knowledge of the TPP comes from leaked documents. The Government has noted that any final TPP agreement would require legislation so would go through the select committee process for consultation at that point.

2.4 Five territorial authorities have decided to support, in varying ways, the Renewables

Motueka petition that seeks to have the New Zealand Government conclude negotiations in a way that provides net positive benefits to each region and New Zealand, and subject to 12 specific objectives (Attachment 1).

2.5 The nature of the decision being sought of the Council is largely political, and there is

limited direct advice on the direction the Council might take that staff can offer. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 A group called The Renewables Motueka wrote to the Council on 20 March 2014

requesting that the Council adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership resolution for Local Government consideration provided by the group (Attachment 1). The resolution seeks to have the Council make a statement to the New Zealand Government that the Government, among other things:

“conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a

way that provides net positive benefits for Christchurch City and New Zealand”.

Clause 31

469

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014

Earthquake Recovery Committee of the Whole 7. 8. 2014

- 2 - (1.) Cont’d

4. COMMENT What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

4.1 The TPP agreement involves 12 Asia Pacific countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam,

Chile, Japan, Peru, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand.

4.2 The TPP aims to create an Asia Pacific regional free trade agreement by:

4.2.1 Opening up trade in goods and services including providing a “level playing field” for New Zealand exporters to the Asia Pacific countries. The parties to the TPP account for 45 per cent of New Zealand’s total trade.1

4.2.2 Boosting investment flows through, for example, access to government procurement contracts.

4.2.3 Promoting closer links across a range of economic policy and regulatory issues such as tariff elimination and reduced compliance costs for goods exporters.

4.2.4 Shaping future trade liberalisation in line with the original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 2005.

4.3 Negotiations between the 12 countries concerning the TPP are ongoing. The

Government has signalled that until those negotiations are complete and an agreement is signed there will be no public release of the contents of the TPP. At that point the agreement would go through a select committee process for consultation.

4.4 As a result the costs and benefits of any potential agreement may only be estimated. The

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign2 estimate export gains for New Zealand of US$4.1 billion in the year 2025 (a 6.8% increase in exports) while a Sustainability Council3 review concludes that the total benefits are likely to be less than a quarter of the estimated US$4.1 billion of gains for New Zealand.

Community and Business Response to the TPP 4.5 Concerns about the TPP focus on the potential negative impact on national sovereignty,

local procurement policies, increases in the cost of medicines, and restrictions on the use of the Internet as well as the lack of visibility of the negotiations. “It’s Our Future” is a campaign (www.itsourfuture.org.nz) that seeks to make the negotiations public.4 Many commentators on the site maintain that the United States is bundling significant TPP proposals that inhibit or prohibit the exercise of national autonomy and are not trade issues into the TPP. The campaign’s website states their knowledge of the TPP comes from leaked documents.

4.6 On 23 June 2014 the Federated Farmers National President Bruce Willis supported a

speedy resolution of the TPP saying that “New Zealand farmers will support leaving countries behind that are not prepared to eliminate agricultural tariffs.” On 5 July 2014 Mr Willis commented that “the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) remains a prize we must pursue with all the vigour we can.5“

1http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php 2http://mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php 3 http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/tpps-benefits-less-than-a-quarter-of-governments-claim/ 4 www.itsourfuture.org.nz 5 http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/tag/bruce-wills/

470

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014


- 3 - (1.) Cont’d

Other Local Authorities’ Actions 4.7 As of June 2014 five other territorial authorities or their committees have considered the

issue of providing comment to the Government on the TPP. It is unknown to what extent this has impacted on their relationships with Government:

(a) Greater Wellington Regional Council expressed concern at not knowing what

impact any such agreement would have on local government. The debate within Greater Wellington included concern that it was not Council’s place to get involved in the Government’s trade negotiations. However they voted to ask the Government to oppose any part of a Pacific-wide trade deal that would curtail the way it does business.

(b) Auckland Council’s Regional Development and Operations Committee, and

Nelson City Council have both moved to support the lodging of a statement to the Government with the same wording as is in Attachment 1.

(c) Horizons Regional Council agreed to send a letter to the Prime Minister asking him

to submit any agreement that New Zealand reaches in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations to the scrutiny of Parliament, including consideration by a Select Committee, before a democratic decision is made on signing the agreement.

(d) Tasman District Council adopted the same resolution as Auckland and Nelson with

the addition of a clause to refer matters to the Parliamentary Select Committee process, allowing adequate time for public submission and the amendment of point xii (the last point) removing the requirement for public consultation during the negotiations.

Implications for the Council if the TPP is Adopted by the Government 4.8 If signed, the TPP may affect national legislation. Although the extent of any impact is

unknown at this stage, one area that may be affected is any preference for local suppliers in procurement policies. Christchurch City Council’s procurement policy does seek to give local suppliers full and fair opportunity to bid for contracts. However, the Council “will buy from the best source available, according to its own judgement of all costs, benefits and overall value for money.” The group, ‘It’s Our Future’, suggest that the TPP will enable large transnational firms with more competitive rates due to scale to squeeze out smaller local firms.

4.9 A further impact for the Council may be in the area of intellectual property rights6.

Librarians, archivists, scientists and educators are particularly concerned about the TPP’s digital rights management (DRM) provisions. DRM is placed on content, such as on DVDs or e-books, to prevent the material from being copied and shared. While there are fair use provisions that provide exceptions to copyright, the TPP's provisions would make it extremely difficult for people to access content for these purposes because the tools to break the locks are themselves illegal to distribute and share. These provisions may have some implications for the Christchurch City Council’s librarians and for the people who use our libraries.

4.10 It is difficult to assess the TPP as very little is formally known about the content of the potential agreement.

6 http://www.ifex.org/international/2012/11/22/tpp_censorship/

471

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014


- 4 - (1.) Cont’d

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no direct financial implications to the Council arising from this report. However there may be financial consequences that arise directly or indirectly as a result of any TPP, although these will occur as a part of any wider implementation of public policy.

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council: 6.1 Note that the nature of the decision being sought of the Council is largely political, and

there is limited direct advice on the direction the Council might take that staff can offer. Attachment 1 is the draft of the submission that the petitioners, the group ‘The Renewables Motueka”, have suggested that the Council could adopt, and it is open to the Council to do so.

6.2 Receive the report.

It was decided to receive the report and refer it to the 14 August Council meeting for further discussion.

472

Attachment 1 Trans‐Pacific Partnership Agreement Resolution for the Government’s consideration That the Christchurch City Council encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Christchurch and New Zealand, that is, provided the Partnership and Agreements achieve the following objectives: i. Continues to allow the Christchurch City Council and other Councils, if they so choose,

to adopt procurement policies that provide for a degree of local preference; to choose whether particular services and facilities are provided in house, by council-controlled organisations (CCOs) or by contracting out; or to require higher health and safety, environmental protection, employment rights and conditions, community participation, animal protection or human rights standards than national or international minimum standards;

ii. Maintains good diplomatic and trade relations and partnerships for Christchurch and

New Zealand with other major trading partners not included in the agreement, including with China;

iii. Provides substantially increased access for our agriculture exports, particularly those

from the Canterbury region into the US market; iv. Does not undermine PHARMAC, raise the cost of medical treatments and medicines or

threaten public health measures, such as tobacco control; v. Does not give overseas investors or suppliers any greater rights than domestic

investors and suppliers, such as through introducing Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or reduce our ability to control overseas investment or finance;

vi. Does not expand intellectual property rights and enforcement in excess of current law;

vii. Does not weaken our public services, require privatisation, hinder reversal of privatisations, or increase the commercialisation of government or of Christchurch City Council or other local government organisations;

viii. Does not reduce our flexibility to support local economic and industry development and

encourage good employment and environmental practices and initiatives which enable marginalised young people to develop their skills and transition into meaningful employment;

ix. Contains enforceable labour clauses requiring adherence to core International Labour

Organisation conventions and preventing reduction of labour rights for trade or investment advantage;

x. Contains enforceable environmental clauses preventing reduction of environmental

standards for trade or investment advantage; xi. Has general exceptions to protect human rights, the environment, the Treaty of

Waitangi, and New Zealand’s economic and financial stability; xii. Has been negotiated with real public consultation including regular public releases of

drafts of the text of the agreement, and ratification being conditional on a full social, environmental and economic impact assessment including public submissions.


COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014

25. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC (Cont’d) Attached.

475

THURSDAY 14 AUGUST 2014

COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely

the items listed below. Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

477

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE RELEASED

33. LAND ACQUISITION – 144

WINTERS ROAD Confidential Negotiations s7(2)(i) Negotiations to purchase land and settle

litigation When settlement of the land purchase is completed

479

COUNCIL 14. 8. 2014

Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.

Note Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows: “(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and

the text of that resolution (or copies thereof): (a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

481

final report part c - appendix c: wastewater overflows in flood...

Documents