Explain this to me: where wastewater goes

This episode is in preparation. These show notes are published in draft so that the scope of the episode, and the limits on it, are on the record before it is recorded. Chapter marks and the audio itself follow — [Awaiting client evidence].

This is the episode to listen to if you only listen to one. Approximately one million litres of wastewater a day is the figure attributed to the proposed 1,200 dwellings at Arrow Junction, and it is the most consequential number in the file — not because it is large, but because it repeats. Every day. In the same place. For as long as the development stands.

We do not multiply it out. We do not convert it. We follow it, link by link, and mark the point where the documents stop.

Chapters

• The figure, and why we refuse to annualise it
• Link one and two: household and reticulation — the part everyone pictures
• Link three: the treatment plant, its design capacity, and what happens above it
• Link four: what treatment removes, and what it does not
• Link five: land application at Morven Hill — the link the argument usually skips
• Link six and seven: soil, and then groundwater, which has no gate on it
• Where the documented chain stops, and what would close the gap
• The one question: where does every litre go?

What this episode does not claim

• It does not claim the plant will fail, or that groundwater will be contaminated. We hold no expert evidence and do not pretend to.
• It does not claim the applicant has no answer — only that no assessment of the fate of the volume has been published to us, [Source to be added].
• It states no land area, loading rate, soil characteristic, consent limit or monitoring frequency, because none has been verified by us.
• It performs no arithmetic on the published volume. A derived number is still an invented number.
• It makes no statement about the intention or conduct of any person or company.

Read alongside

Where a million litres a day would go · Water, Wastewater & Nitrogen · 2.8 tonnes of nitrogen a year

Wastewater and hydrogeology sit on the second rung of the funding ladder at Support the Investigation, because this is the question we cannot answer ourselves. Ridgeburn Limited may answer it at any length under our standing right of response, and we will publish the answer in full.

Evidence statement

Classification: Applicant Evidence

Status: The volume and the disposal location are the applicant's own; the fate of the volume is not independently verified and no assessment has been published to us.

Author: Ridgeburn Press

Last reviewed: 16 September 2026

Sources

1. Wastewater volume and disposal arrangements for the proposed Arrow Junction development, applicant material — [Source to be added]
2. Morven Hill land application area — extent, loading and consent conditions — [Source to be added]

Assumptions

• The ~1,000,000 L/day figure is used exactly as the applicant states it and is not adjusted, annualised or averaged.
• Peak, wet-weather and infiltration allowances are not known to us — [Awaiting client evidence]

What is not established

• The land area available for application and the loading rate it produces.
• Soil and groundwater characteristics of the receiving environment.
• The monitoring regime proposed, and what happens when the plant underperforms.
• Any quantity of phosphorus at any point in the chain.

Right of response

Ridgeburn Limited, Queenstown Lakes District Council and any person named here may respond in full. How to respond.