The chronic issue of fly-tipping on Tasman’s riversides continues to rear its head across the district.
Since June 2024, the district council has spent almost $14,000 to clean up rubbish by the river, with recent finds including a discarded engine and trailer, and even a hut built out of pallets.
“That’s not the most impressive structure we’ve had down there,” Rob Smith, council’s group manager for environmental science, told councillors last week.
“We’ve actually had one with a flat screen TV and lights.”
Other common items dumped on roadsides and riverbeds include animal carcasses, mattresses, whiteware, and furniture.
But while some residents might enjoy their temporary riverside bungalows, they come at a cost to the district.
In 2018/19, the council spent $12,600 collecting litter and $19,000 for material dumped by rivers, though those figures don’t account for dumping in coastal areas.
In contrast, in 2023/24 it cost $45,000 to collect litter, while $100,000 was needed for material dumped on riversides.
However, the high latter cost was largely driven by the need to remove fill and waste that appeared to have been dumped by a contractor given its commercial scale, rather than a spike of incidents that year.
Aside from the cost of cleanup, which is covered by the council’s waste management budget, the work occupies contractor time and resources that would otherwise be focused on rivers.
Over the last 6 years, the cost of dumping material at one of Tasman’s resource recovery centres climbed 126 per cent, from $159 per tonne to almost $361, far outstripping inflation of 25 per cent over that same time.
A council spokesperson says that increasing Government waste levies, rising costs to provide services, and a shift to a user-pays rather than a ratepayer-subsidised service have contributed to the price increase beyond inflation.
“We have attempted to meet any increases by providing free drop off for items such as batteries and gas cylinders. Vehicle tyres can also be dropped off at no cost under the national Tyrewise scheme.”
Despite the rising fees, Rob didn’t think the cost of dumping was the problem.
“It’s slovenly behaviour by individuals who disrespect our environment … I think it’s disgusting,” he says.
“Some of the pictures you’ll see are people who … have driven past the dump to get there, so they’re spending petrol to get there. It’s a state of mind.”
One Nelson scrap metal buyer contacted by Local Democracy Reporting wasn’t able to determine what the price of the engine might be but said it would need to be drained of oil and would then fetch 20 cents per kilogram, or $2000 per tonne.
Though Rob assures there was “quite a bit of work” being undertaken to catch the culprits, the council was unable to recoup most of the costs.
In most cases, the council issued infringement notices rather than prosecuting as the latter required a “heavy burden of proof” beyond, for example, an addressed envelope in the dumped trash, as had been found before.
“Video evidence of the deed taking place would be valuable,” the spokesperson said.
The maximum infringement cost for littering is $400, while prosecution through the court system could reach fines of up to $20,000.
