CS-VUE- Technology for Environment - Hot Topics - Blog

Further farming fines of more than $40,000

Adrian — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:43:27 +0000

Fines totaling $42,000 have been handed down to two Hauraki-based dairy farm owners and a sharemilker in the latest sentencing for dairy effluent offences.

These fines are as a result of prosecutions taken by Environment Waikato following its helicopter monitoring programme in August 2009.

In the first of two similar cases before the Hamilton District Court last week, owner John Pinnell and his sharemilker Stephen Jamieson were fined $16,000 and $10,000 respectively for two offences involving the unlawful discharge of dairy effluent on to land at a Kopu property.

In a second case, owner Mark Millington was also fined $16,000 for four offences involving the unlawful discharge of dairy effluent on to land at a Paeroa property.
An EW summary of facts in the Pinnell/Jamieson case said helicopter monitoring last year had identified a potential issue on a farm near Kopu and a follow-up ground inspection showed effluent had overflowed from the farm dairy sump adjacent to the Waipaturawa Stream and feed pad runoff had discharged into the farm drains. This inspection had followed an earlier formal warning to the sharemilker in 2008 over effluent getting into the stream.

In the Millington case, EW’s summary of facts also said a follow up inspection after last year’s helicopter monitoring showed a range of problems, including that effluent and feed pad runoff had discharged into the farm drains.

Both farms are located in the lower Waihou River catchment.

EW’s investigations and complaints manager Patrick Lynch said fines such as these are important reminders.

“These cases have reached their conclusion now though the offences arose nearly twelve months ago. RMA prosecutions work their way through the council and court processes and that takes time.

“However, these results should be taken as timely reminders to dairy farmers facing the challenges of the new season that they still need to be vigilant with their effluent systems.

“Potential fines for offending against the Resource Management Act have recently increased dramatically. Farmers who are prosecuted over their effluent management can expect fines to rise dramatically. It should be an obvious choice that farmers are better off spending the money on getting their systems compliant instead of having to pay fines as well as fixing the problems.”

All dairy farms in the Waikato region will shortly receive a copy of an effluent checklist, as a result of collaboration between Dairy NZ and Environment Waikato. The checklist allows a farmer to do a self audit of their effluent systems.

EW is urging all farmers to use the checklist to identify system problems themselves, so that the problems can be fixed before an EW inspection that may lead to enforcement action.
Source: http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=4&t=97&id=55476

Forests NSW investigated over logging breaches

Adrian — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:30:16 +0000

Forests NSW is being forced to review its logging practices, after the discovery of a spate of new breaches including logging old-growth rainforests and destroying the habitat of threatened native animals.

The latest damage, at Girard State Forest near Tenterfield, is the fifth time in five months that the state agency has come under investigation.

The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, which oversees environmental protection licences, is conducting a joint audit with the agency of logging in the region.

The review will examine the regulations under which contractors are employed by Forests NSW, and rules protecting native wildlife, young trees and trees surrounding waterways.

The department has already handed out four penalty notices to the agency this year for breaking logging rules in the nearby Yabbra State Forest.

Damage in Girard State Forest was uncovered by a team of zoologists and botanists, working with an environment group, North East Forest Alliance.

It included a nine-hectare stand of mature trees, some of them two metres wide at ground level and 50 metres tall, which was part of a ‘’special prescription zone” under the area’s forestry agreement. This does not forbid logging, but requires contractors to “maintain or enhance the values that the area is zoned to protect”.

The area was also part of Forests NSW’s 1995 Tenterfield environmental impact statement, and part of one of the wildlife corridors the state government is striving to link up along the Great Dividing Range, from Queensland to Victoria.

Girard State Forest provides a home for koalas, stuttering frogs, sooty owls, powerful owls, golden-tipped bats and yellow-bellied gliders.

“Recent audits have exposed illegal logging of rainforest, wetlands, endangered ecological communities and now old-growth forest,” said a spokesman for North East Forest Alliance, Dailan Pugh.

”These are what the regional forest agreement was meant to protect. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. This is in addition to systemic failures by Forests NSW to implement many of the measures required to protect threatened species and streams.”

Altogether, the report documented 24 recent breaches of a threatened species licence, 10 of an environmental protection licence, nine of a fisheries license and two of the site’s integrated forestry operations approval.

Forests NSW, a public trading enterprise within the NSW Department of Primary Industries which plays a central role in the state’s $1 billion timber industry, confirmed it was taking part in the joint audit.

”In addition, a compliance response team has been established to address these issues,” the agency said in a statement.

”Forests NSW is committed to ensuring that the highest possible standards are maintained during harvest operations.”

The environment department said separate investigations into other breaches in Double Duke and Grange state forests were still under way.

”Once these investigations are complete and, if a pattern is identified, [the department] would consider further regulatory steps,” a spokesman said.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/forests-nsw-investigated-over-logging-breaches-20100817-128lo.html

China cuts power to big emitters

Adrian — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:38:43 +0000

Authorities in eastern China have cut off electricity to more than 500 factories for a month after they failed to meet emission reduction targets, state media reports.

The news on Monday came after China warned more than 2,000 companies in high-polluting and energy-intensive industries to shut down outdated equipment or risk having bank loans frozen, approvals for new projects dry up, and their power turned off.

The order from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology was the latest salvo by Beijing as it tries to slash its world-leading greenhouse gas emissions and restructure the economy.

The 506 factories in eight cities targeted by officials in Anhui province are mostly in industries that consume high amounts of energy such as the coal, chemical and metallurgical sectors, the China Daily newspaper reported.

“Some of their high energy consumption is due to the factories’ antiquated production facilities,” Zhao De, an energy official with the province’s Department of Economic and Information Technology, was quoted as saying.

He told the newspaper it was the first time the province had cut the power to such a large number of factories, although previously officials had put limits on power consumption during peak summer months.

Sun Yangzhi, an official at Zhongcheng Cement Factory which employs 700 people in the city of Huaibei, told the newspaper his plant received a notice that power to the plant would be cut for a month two days before the blackout.

“We are quite worried because several tons of coating material will be wasted if we do not put them into production as soon as possible,” Sun was quoted as saying.

“We are also anxious because we will not be able to complete several orders.”

The suspensions are intended to help the province meet its energy consumption targets by year’s end, the report said.

The factory blackouts will also reduce electricity demand as the province copes with two weeks of temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius which have sent consumption soaring, the report said.

Neighbouring provinces have also introduced measures to cope with surging power demand.

Nanjing, the capital of Jiangsu province, has restricted consumption to 1,000 companies since Thursday to ensure that residents have enough power and has also asked energy-intensive companies to halt production, the report said.

In Zhejiang, 69 companies in Jinhua city had their electricity rationed between July and September, while in Shaoxing city, which consumes a quarter of the province’s power, 200 firms face limits until year’s end, it said.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/china-cuts-power-to-big-emitters-20100816-126fn.html

Record fine imposed for petrol station leak

Adrian — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:44:29 +0000

Three companies found guilty of spilling 10,000 litres of petrol have been ordered to pay the heaviest fine imposed in a regional council case in Auckland.

Petrol Alley Services (GAS), URS New Zealand and Brown Bros (NZ) were found guilty in the Auckland District Court over a fuel leak from a petrol station in Line Rd, Glen Innes.

The companies have been ordered to pay a fine of $160,000, as well as court costs of $80,000.

The court has also demanded an investigation of the fuel which remained in the ground, and the companies could be forced to pay a further $200,000 for a clean-up.

Prosecutor Auckland Regional Council said the charges and fine sent a strong message to large companies to be tighter in their procedures.

“The fines were due to the seriousness of the incident,” said lawyer Janet Whiteside. “The whole industry needs to take a message from this sort of incident so it can’t happen again.”

The three companies had claimed they were not at fault and had done everything reasonable to stop the petrol escaping.

Engineering consultancy URS hired contractors Brown Bros to test the site for contamination by former owner Caltex.

Brown Bros accidentally drilled a hole the size of a 50c piece in a fuel line used to carry 91 octane.

The spill occurred when new owners GAS reopened the petrol station with the help of another company, Fuelquip.

Fuelquip – which had already pleaded guilty – tested the fuel lines, unaware of the hole. The petrol leaked into the Ruapatoka Stream, 75m away, killing some wildlife.

GAS had argued that the chance of a company such as URS or Brown Bros drilling a hole in a fuel line and not repairing it was extraordinary, and the company could not have foreseen it.

URS and GAS each argued they could not have been expected to predict mistakes by the other.

Judge Fred McElrea ruled that URS and Brown Bros did not take necessary precautions to prevent a fuel leak, and that GAS failed to order the testing of the fuel lines.

GAS paid about $205,000 in cleaning up the site after the spill in December 2007. The judge ruled that this cost should be shared by the other companies.

GAS lawyers said 200,000 litres of petrol and oil had been sucked from the stream and the service station, and experts had said there was no need for further cleaning-up.

But the ARC believed there were still pollutants in the soil, and successfully called for further remedial work.

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10661748&ref=rss

You wouldn’t read about it: climate scientists right

Adrian — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:59:08 +0000

RODNEY TIFFEN 26 July

Chances are, you have not heard much about Climategate lately, but last November it dominated the media. Three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were published on a Russian website.

The research institute was a leading contributor to the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and some of the leaked emails showed the scientists in a poor light.

The scandal was one of the pivotal moments in changing the politics of climate change. What seemed close to a bipartisan agreement on an environmental trading scheme collapsed with Tony Abbott’s defeat of Malcolm Turnbull. Within months the Rudd government lost its nerve on what the former prime minister called ”the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time”.

By casting doubt on the integrity of the scientists, Climategate helped puncture public faith in the science, and probably contributed to Labor’s political panic. The echo chamber of columnists reverberated with angry and accusatory claims. In Australia, Piers Akerman said: ”The tsunami of leaked emails … reveal a culture of fraud, manipulation, deceit and personal vindictiveness to rival anything in a John le Carre or John Grisham thriller.” Later he wrote: ”The crowd that gathered in Copenhagen were there pushing a fraud.”

Andrew Bolt thought that ”what they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal” of our time. ”Emails leaked on the weekend show there is indeed a conspiracy to deceive the world – and Mr Rudd has fallen for it.”

Miranda Devine wrote: ”We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity.”

The ramifications of Climategate were immediate. The climate unit’s head, Professor Phil Jones, was forced to stand down. Three inquiries were set up to examine the scientists’ conduct.

The first, a British House of Commons select committee, reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact. The second, a science assessment panel, set up with the Royal Society and consisting of eminent British researchers, reported in April.

Its chairman, Lord Oxburgh, said his team found ”absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever” and that ”whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly”.

The third, set up by the university itself, published its 160-page report two weeks ago. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of the CRU scientists, ”we find that the rigour and honesty [of the scientists] as scientists are not in doubt”. Importantly, it concluded: ”We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

In other words, nothing in the emails undermined the research of the climate scientists. Like the other two, the inquiry found aspects of the scientists’ behaviour that fell short of professional standards – ”failing to display the proper degree of openness”.

What might seem the most damning was the way Jones dealt with freedom of information requests, but context makes his behaviour more understandable. In July last year alone, the CRU received 60 FoI requests. Answering them would have been too much for even all the unit’s staff time. In a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests, each wanting data from five different countries – 200 requests in all. Jones concluded the unit was subject to a vexatious campaign.

While not fully excusing their behaviour, one has to appreciate the embattled position of scientists who received a steady stream of obscene and abusive emails and constant public attacks on their integrity.

After the leaks, Jones, now reinstated, received death threats and said he had contemplated suicide.

You might imagine the media would be keen to report on authoritative conclusions about allegations it had found so newsworthy in December. But coverage of each of the reports has been non-existent in many news organisations and in others brief or without prominence.

At best, the coverage of the inquiries’ conclusions added up to a 20th of the coverage the original allegations received, which leaves us to ponder the curiosities of a news media that gets so over-excited by dramatic allegations and then remains so incurably uninterested in their resolution.

The newspapers that gave greatest play to the allegations tended to give less attention to the findings. The columnists who gave greatest vent to their indignation have not made any revisions or corrections, let alone apologised to the scientists whose integrity they so sweepingly impugned.

Even at the time, it was clear much of the coverage was more attuned to maximising sensation rather than to reporting with precision. The sheer number of leaked emails, for instance, was sometimes taken as proof of the scale of the scandal, as if they were all disreputable.

In fact, only from a handful could anything sinister be conjured.

It is a common criticism of the media that it prominently publishes allegations, but gives less coverage to the prosaic facts that later refute them. But rarely is the disproportion so stark. Rarely has such an edifice of sweeping accusation and extravagant invective been constructed on such a slender factual basis.

Rarely does it do such damage.

Rodney Tiffen is emeritus professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100727-10t5i.html

Queensland mine to face environmental charges

Adrian — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:43:20 +0000

Aditya Birla Minerals Ltd’s Mount Gordon copper mine in northwest Queensland has been charged for failing to meet its environmental obligations.

The Queensland government has charged the mine with 19 offences, including one count of failing to improve on site water management and 18 counts of failing to comply with the Environmental Authority and to decrease the risk of environmental harm.

Department of Environment and Resource Management’s acting Director of Litigation Reuben Carlos said Aditya Birla had allegedly failed to meet those requirements within set timeframes.

“The environmental protection orders included requirements for Birla to carry out investigations into its facilities, including seepage from two of its tailings dams, within a set timeframe,” Mr Carlos said in a statement.

Mr Carlos said Birla allegedly failed to come up with action plans, timetables and costings for the rehabilitation of the mine’s waste storage facilities.

All charges against Aditya Birla are due for mention in the Mount Isa Magistrates Court on 10 August 2010.

The maximum penalty for each breach is $832,500.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/queensland-mine-to-face-environmental-charges-20100728-10unj.html

Contractor fined $20,000 for clearing remnant vegetation

Adrian — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:57:53 +0000

A Central Queensland man who was contracted to clear endangered remnant vegetation on his neighbour’s property was fined $20,000 yesterday in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court.

Donald Charles Edmistone pleaded guilty before Magistrate John McGrath to clearing native vegetation on a property known as “Orange Grove” at Dingo, 150km west of Rockhampton. No conviction was recorded.

The $20,000 penalty is the biggest fine handed to a contractor (non land owner) under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for a vegetation clearing offence.

In 2009, Mr Edmistone cleared 465 hectares of vegetation – the equivalent of approximately 930 rugby fields – after being contracted by the property’s owner.

More than half the vegetation cleared was classified “endangered remnant vegetation”. This was one of the largest remaining areas of endangered native vegetation in Queensland.

The Department of Environment and Resource Management’s Director of Litigation Reuben Carlos said the contractor had broken the law under the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

“Contractors have a responsibility to check whether permits to clear land are required, and if so, whether the landholder has obtained those permits,” Mr Carlos said.

“Contractors must make sure the property owner has gone through the proper channels before any clearing is carried out.”

The court heard that Mr Edmistone had been under the mistaken impression that the property owner had obtained a permit to clear the land. It also heard that Mr Edmistone had cooperated with the Department of Environment and Resource Management by immediately admitting liability and cooperating with the investigation.

Mr Carlos said the fine would serve as a deterrent to other contractors who did not understand the seriousness of Queensland’s clearing laws.

“The department is determined to protect Queensland’s vegetation and prosecute those who do the wrong thing,” he said.

Mr Carlos advised landholders who are considering clearing their land to consult the relevant local government, the department and relevant Federal Government departments.

Source: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/media-room/2010/07/14-contractor-fined.html

EW stepping up effluent monitoring in 2010-11

Adrian — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:51:51 +0000

Environment Waikato says it will be taking a more intensive approach to monitoring of dairy farms during the 2010-11 season.

Normally EW monitors about 15 per cent of Waikato dairy farms each year to check compliance with dairy effluent rules.

In the coming season it plans to monitor about 25 per cent.

The announcement comes as new figures show significant non-compliance with EW’s permitted activity effluent rules rose from 20 per cent of monitored farms in 2008-09 to 25 per cent last season. Permitted activity rules covers things like spreading effluent using irrigators. Significant non-compliance is defined as an event where untreated effluent has entered water or is likely to enter water given the right circumstances (such as during heavy rain).

The council’s compliance and education manager Rob Dragten said it was encouraging that re-inspections of the significantly non-compliant properties from 2009-10 show 80 per cent of the farms have already improved effluent management infrastructure or implemented management practices to reduce risk.

“However, what these 2009-10 figures do show is a concerning upswing in significant non-compliance at a time when there has been a lot of attention put on farmers lifting their game,” said Mr Dragten.

“We are about to start monitoring again for the new season and we expect compliance with our rules. Our stepped up level of monitoring means more farms can expect to be visited.

“We believe the rate of significant non-compliance in our region is mainly due to effluent management systems problems rather than farmers deliberately flouting the rules. These problems often involve inadequate storage and poor containment facilities for effluent and sludges. Another common problem is irrigators applying effluent too heavily, either because they are not shifted, they are moving too slowly or because of poor maintenance on the nozzles.

“We are very supportive of Fonterra’s plan to do effluent system appraisals on every farm in the Waikato this year, as we hope this will help farmers identify any shortcomings with effluent management infrastructure.”

Mr Dragten said Dairy NZ was available to provide advice and assistance to farmers, as were farm consultants. Fonterra has a network of sustainable dairying advisors who can provide help and assistance to their suppliers. Also, in conjunction with Fonterra and Dairy NZ, copies of EW’s effluent compliance checklist are being sent to all dairy farmers in the region shortly.

“The aim is that every farmer will use the checklist to audit their own system and use that information to fix any problems before we come across them.

“We believe that working with the likes of Fonterra and DairyNZ is the key to achieving a long lasting improvement in effluent system compliance.”

Another measure is that EW is getting Massey University to develop a calculator that can provide a guide to farmers on the factors that should be considered when constructing an effluent pond for storage of effluent that is to be applied to land.

“Following the rules is important for environmental protection, particularly the health of our waterways, given that poor effluent management can boost bacteria and nutrient levels in water with negative consequences.

“Farmers, industry organizations and suppliers, and EW will all need to work together closely to lift compliance levels,” said Mr Dragten.

This media item was current at its release date. The facts or figures it contains may have changed since its original publication.

Source: http://www.ew.govt.nz/News-and-events/Media-releases/EW-stepping-up-effluent-monitoring-in-2010-11/

Council pinged for poo puddle

Adrian — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:26:55 +0000

Taupo District Council has been prosecuted for dumping a “puddle of poo” near a playground in Mangakino.

About 30 residents were told at a meeting in the community last night sewage was dumped at the Mangakino Bowling Club pit on September 3, 2008.

Taupo District Council pleaded guilty to the charges laid by Environment Waikato in Tokoroa District Court and will be sentenced later this month.

The judge ordered the councils to hold the restorative justice meeting to work out how the suggested $27,000 fine could be put back into the Mangakino community.

Environment Waikato manager investigations and complaints Patrick Lynch said the sewage pit was near a playground, unfenced, with no signs and was “at such a drop there was a drowning risk”.

EW’s investigations found there had been a number of discharges over a long period of time in pits at the bowling club, golf club and Rimu St and the drying beds had been regularly used in 2008 for depositing the sludge. The bowling club site and drying beds have since been cleaned up.

Resident Peter Billing said the council’s actions were unsafe and the large pit by the Mangakino Bowling Club should have at least been fenced.

“If you create a puddle of poo in the ground that’s not meant to be there you put a fence around it,” he said.

Taupo District Council Special projects manager Dave Inwood apologised saying the excess sludge was caused due to the council’s sewage treatment plant being overloaded with rain water.

Steps had been taken to fix the problem. Residents wanted proceeds of the fine spent on improving the town’s stormwater and irrigation systems or setting up a community garden.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/3921084/Council-pinged-for-poo-puddle

Farmers fined for dirty dairying

Adrian — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:58:01 +0000

Two Bay of Plenty farmers have been fined a total of nearly $60,000 for dirty dairying.

Fantastic Farms Limited was fined $10,000 on each of four charges relating to incidents where discharged dairy effluent entered the Waiteti Stream catchment near Rotorua.

Wildhaber Wench & Co and Lucas Wildhaber were also charged for effluent leaking into the catchment, and were fined $16,800 for two charges.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council chief executive Bill Bayfield said the sentencing showed that the goalposts had moved in relation to new penalties for dirty dairying after October 1 2009.

Since that date, fine levels have increased from a maximum of $200,000 for any party, to a new maximum of $300,000 for an individual or $600,000 for a company.

Mr Bayfield said both cases highlighted the need for farmers to manage their systems so they worked well at all times of the year, including during staff shortages, calving and in rain.

“We’ve created some great tools in conjunction with Federated Farmers, Fonterra and DairyNZ to help farmers to maintain compliance,” he said.

“Fonterra and DairyNZ also have people on the ground to support farmers in improving their systems, which we encourage people to use.”

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/3921507/Farmers-fined-for-dirty-dairying