Helicopter pilot found guilty of contaminating stream
 

Helicopter pilot found guilty of contaminating stream


29.06.05 11.00am


A Northland market gardener whose entire 2002 crop was wiped out after weedkiller sprayed on to a nearby farm contaminated his irrigation water has welcomed a court decision holding the aerial spraying pilot responsible.

Peter Hulmes' Kerikeri market garden was one of three damaged when Tordon Brush Killer was sprayed on to a Landcorp farm in October 2002, contaminating a stream he then used for irrigation.

Northland Regional Council laid charges against helicopter pilot Duncan Gourley and Skywork Helicopters under the Resource Management Act for polluting the stream.

Gourley has now been found guilty but Skywork cleared.

No penalty has yet been set.

Mr Hulmes told NZPA today the damage had devastated his tomato and cucumber crop. "It was in excess of $200,000. For a small business it's a very devastating blow."

Although it was now three years ago, the business was still suffering. "We had to strip everything out and start again."

He said he was happy the helicopter pilot had been found guilty and was grateful Northland Regional Council had taken the case to court.

It would make the industry be more careful, Mr Hulmes said.

He said Gourley had effectively sprayed a river, which fed a stream and in turn a communal water supply.

Mr Hulmes said he was pursuing a civil case against the Skywork Helicopters, farm owner Landcorp and forestry company PF Olsen.

Northland Regional Council environmental monitoring manager Tony Phipps told NZPA the Whangarei District Court decision showed how risky spraying could be.

"We certainly think it's a reminder and a warning for people carrying out spraying to make sure they are leaving adequate buffer zones around sensitive areas and taking note of the weather conditions and actively providing adequate protections."

Skywork Helicopters was found not guilty as the judge believed they had acted reasonably, hadn't known an offence was about to be committed, and weren't responsible for the individual actions of their employee.

Mr Phipps said the council would be making submissions to Gourley's sentencing hearing on what would be an appropriate penalty.

As it was the first prosecution of a spray-drift case, Mr Phipps said he could not yet say what that penalty might be. "There was substantial damage caused but I guess we'll have to wait and see how the judge sees it."

The council had no other spraying or spray-drift cases pending.

- NZPA

What a shame. Had to happen sooner or later even there, I suppose.

Flipside in other places - some folk make tidy pocket money making spurious drift claims. That is, they know most insurers will roll over and settle out of court, because it is the cheapest option, even if the claim is obviously fiction.

They even caught a farmer contaminating one of his own dams over here, with endo no less, to try on a drift claim.

Expect a rash of claims now, I suppose.