French-Owned Barker’s Faces Scrutiny Over Wastewater Discharge

In a recent incident, the French-owned company Barker’s has come under investigation for improperly discharging wastewater from its facility in South Canterbury, New Zealand. On April 30, 2025, an employee admitted to activating a hydrant that allowed treated wastewater to flow onto Department of Conservation land. This incident occurred amid ongoing scrutiny of Barker’s wastewater management practices as the company undergoes a $60 million expansion of its processing plant.

Bill Pridham, operations manager at Barker’s, responded to inquiries about the infringement notices issued to the employee involved. He stated, “The content is not a fair reflection of the facts,” while acknowledging the serious nature of the breach. Barker’s has since implemented significant internal measures to address the situation.

Background of Environmental Concerns

Leading up to the incident, Barker’s had faced criticism regarding its wastewater discharge practices. ECan, Canterbury’s regional council, issued abatement notices earlier in April 2025 for unauthorized use of sodium hydroxide and for irrigating on conservation land in a manner that posed a risk of runoff into nearby waterways.

Pridham raised concerns about the response from ECan, suggesting that if the discharge was a genuine environmental threat, the council officers should have acted more decisively when they arrived on site. “It is difficult to understand why they did not immediately instruct for the tap to be turned off,” he remarked, emphasizing the perceived failures in communication between Barker’s and ECan during the incident.

According to ECan’s enforcement officer notes, the council received a complaint at 17:39 from a nearby resident regarding wastewater flowing from a Barker’s hydrant. Upon investigation, ECan staff discovered the wastewater flowing rapidly from the hydrant, with a strong and offensive odor described as similar to “chunder/vomit, rotten fruit vinegar.” The officers noted the potential for environmental harm if the wastewater were to enter the Hae Hae Te Moana River.

Internal Investigations and Compliance Actions

Following the incident, ECan enforcement officers visited Barker’s facility at 19:45 to address the situation. An employee on site, who was new and working alone, indicated he could not turn off the hydrant but called a manager for assistance. When the manager arrived, he appeared nervous and explained that the hydrant was typically used to manage water flow during rain events.

Despite requests to turn off the hydrant, it remained operational for some time. The officers noted that the wastewater was likely from the holding ponds, which were only partially full at the time of inspection. The ongoing situation raised questions about Barker’s compliance with environmental regulations and the adequacy of its wastewater management strategies.

In subsequent communications, Pridham expressed frustration with ECan’s handling of the investigation and noted that Barker’s had been proactive in addressing past compliance issues. He insisted that the company had a genuine willingness to improve its environmental practices and claimed that the recent abatement notices were not directly related to the April 30 incident.

As the situation develops, both Barker’s and ECan appear to be at odds over the interpretation of events and the framework for accountability. Pridham has challenged the assertions of non-compliance made by ECan, stating that the council had previously authorized certain activities and had not communicated effectively regarding critical waterways.

Valyn Barrett, ECan’s enforcement team leader, commented on the investigation’s findings, noting that while there was no evidence that the discharge had reached the river, the method of discharge was not permitted under existing regulations. As a result, enforcement actions were taken against the individual employee rather than the company itself.

This incident marks a significant moment for Barker’s as it navigates both regulatory challenges and public scrutiny. The company’s ability to rectify these issues while maintaining its expansion plans will be closely monitored by both local authorities and the community.