French-Owned Barker’s Faces Scrutiny Over Wastewater Incident

Barker’s, a fruit and vegetable processing company owned by the French Andros Group, is under investigation following an incident involving unauthorized wastewater discharge from its facility in Pleasant Valley, New Zealand. On April 30, 2025, an employee admitted to turning on a hydrant that released wastewater from a holding pond onto Department of Conservation land, prompting concerns about environmental compliance.

Bill Pridham, operations manager at Barker’s, expressed his dissatisfaction with the characterization of the incident. “The content is not a fair reflection of the facts,” he stated. Despite his concerns, Pridham acknowledged that the incident represented a breach of consent and indicated that Barker’s took “significant internal actions” in response.

The event unfolded after a neighbor reported the discharge to Environment Canterbury (ECan), Canterbury’s regional council, leading to an on-site investigation by enforcement officers. Their arrival at approximately 19:00 revealed that wastewater was flowing rapidly from an open hydrant toward the nearby Hae Hae Te Moana River. The officers noted a “very strong offensive odour” and collected samples for analysis.

This incident was not isolated. Prior to the hydrant discharge, ECan had already issued abatement notices to Barker’s for unauthorized use of sodium hydroxide, raising alarms about the company’s wastewater management practices. The council’s actions prompted the Department of Conservation to express frustration over the need to request copies of the abatement notices through official channels.

Barker’s, which is currently undergoing a $60 million expansion, has faced scrutiny over its wastewater practices for some time. Following the April incident, the company sought to discharge wastewater on a neighboring property, which it acquired with approval from the Overseas Investment Office. In December, Barker’s secured a new discharge consent without public consultation, further complicating the situation.

The ECan enforcement officer’s notes indicated that when officers arrived at Barker’s factory, they engaged with a new employee who was unable to turn off the hydrant. A manager later arrived and explained that the hydrant was used to relieve pressure during rain events. Despite the ongoing concerns, the manager suggested the hydrant might remain open to manage pressure in the ponds, a decision that was not recorded in the factory’s diary.

In the aftermath of the incident, Pridham reiterated his concerns about ECan’s response. He questioned why the enforcement officers did not take immediate action to halt the discharge upon arrival. “If the ECan team had genuinely considered the discharge an environmental threat, it is difficult to understand why they did not instruct for the tap to be turned off,” he remarked.

ECan’s enforcement team leader, Valyn Barrett, clarified that the abatement notices were not directly related to the April 30 incident, as Barker’s had ceased the offending activities. Barrett noted that a thorough investigation found no evidence of the wastewater entering the river, leading to a decision to downgrade the original intention to prosecute the company. Instead, enforcement action was taken against the individual who turned on the hydrant, as he accepted full responsibility for the incident.

The ongoing dialogue between Barker’s and ECan reflects the complexities of environmental compliance in the context of industrial operations. As the investigation continues, both parties are navigating the challenges of ensuring regulatory adherence while managing operational demands.

Barker’s remains committed to improving its environmental practices, asserting that it has engaged consultants to prepare reports and address compliance issues. The situation underscores the importance of clear communication between regulatory bodies and industrial entities to prevent similar incidents in the future.