Kurow's sewage treatment scheme has been issued with a resource consent, despite an Environment Canterbury panel questioning the standard of effluent treatment and disposal.
The Waitaki District Council applied for a consent from Environment Canterbury for the scheme, built in 1988, to dispose of treated effluent to land.
It wanted the consent for 35 years, but it has been granted for 20 years because changes in technology may provide an affordable alternative to upgrade it.
The council's application was lodged in June, 2006, but only considered at a hearing in Oamaru on April 8 by a panel of Emma Christmas (chairwoman) and then-regional councillor Bronwen Murray.
During the hearing, the council's assets group manager Neil Jorgensen said the scheme was the best value for money, both for the community and the environment.
Alternative disposal methods had been looked at, but the cost could not be justified when considering the environmental improvement achieved.
Kurow's 270 ratepayers faced an expensive upgrade of the town's water supply to comply with drinking water standards.
Mr Jorgensen did not believe spending money to upgrade the sewage plant was necessary or justified at present.
In its decision, the hearings panel noted the present treatment and disposal system was basic, consisting of only a single oxidation pond without screening or secondary treatment.
"It is unlikely this plant would be considered acceptable if it was first proposed in this form today," the panel said.
The "wetland" disposal area was not a wetland in terms of a modern treatment plant, "but merely a fenced, overgrown area, predominantly covered in gorse and broom".
It was not clear how much treatment, if any, the wetland provided.
However, the panel accepted evidence from the council that the effects of the scheme, particularly on surrounding groundwater and the nearby Waitaki River, would be low, but pointed out there was uncertainty over that.
The panel imposed monitoring conditions and standards to be met as part of conditions on the consent.
It also insisted on bunds being built to stop overflow from the wetland, which had the potential to affect human health, and the installation of a baffle to screen inorganic solids from entering the wetland.
