Editorial: Decision on soil issue a bit too late

The longer the wrangle over Auckland's soil contamination continued, the less ground for concern there seemed to be. Initially there were fears for the health of residents of areas that were once used for horticulture. In 2001, the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland District Health Board commissioned research which confirmed overseas findings that former orchard land contained traces of DDT, arsenic, copper and lead exceeding health protection levels, whatever that phrase meant. The councils proceeded to produce charts of the residential areas where orchards and market gardens used to be. On legal advice, the councils quietly decided to flag the possible former use on the properties' land information memorandum (LIM) reports pending advice from the Ministry of the Environment on site tests.

When the Herald disclosed the councils' intentions there was a natural outcry from the areas of suspected contamination and we criticised the councils' failure to alert residents to the possible health risks and the certain effect on their property values, which they might not realise until a prospective buyer sought the council's LIM report. But as the debate raged between property-owners, the councils and Environment Minister Marion Hobbs, less was heard about risks to residents' health and more about who ought to pay for soil tests which, it became generally conceded, were not likely to confirm the warning on LIM reports.

No evidence of real contamination has been unearthed. One Meadowbank household paid $2500 to have their soil tested because the property was on the market. The report found the horticultural chemicals did not exceed health guidelines. "I would like to know who is going to pay [for the test]", said the householder. It is a difficult question.

LIM reports ought to include all information about the property that would be of interest to a prospective purchaser. It is fair to mention the former horticultural use, but to add a warning about possible chemical contamination is not fair to the property-owner. The Auckland City Council's statement says in part: "This property ... may previously have been used for horticultural purposes. There is no evidence this property is, or is not, contaminated as a result ..." The first sentence should be there, the second should not. Unfortunately, yesterday the council decided to remove the entire reference to the horticultural use in the hope of resolving the long wrangle.

Residents rightly respond that it is a bit late to remove all reference to the issue. Property values in the affected areas have already suffered and it is unlikely that the slur on their soil's safety will be forgotten. In fact, the slur will only be amplified by time as people forget the fine points of the issue - such as the total absence of evidence of contamination - and remember only that there was some sort of kerfuffle over the state of the soil.

That is the harm that can be done by excessive environmental zeal. It used to be sufficient to note health hazards when hard evidence of them was found; nowadays there are regiments of environmental health officers in national and regional government and they operate by the precautionary principle, which means they look for problems before they appear. And they tend to find enough of a problem to justify their search. The ARC-DHB report that started the soil contamination scare appears to have been received with a high degree of scepticism by the city officials. But their legal advice was also precautionary and they duly started to tag LIM reports.

Let the horticultural tag remain, without the inconclusive reference to contamination. That would give potential purchasers the opportunity to worry about chemicals if they are so minded - or, if they are of a different mind, to welcome the soil's cultivated heritage. Either way it is probably safe to say they will come to no harm.