The shaping of water
Water NZ has rapidly become an industry ‘go-to’ group, but what does it really stand for? Chris Hutching reports.
Water NZ has catapulted to prominence under its chief executive John Pfahlert, and on the back of the Havelock North water inquiry last year.
But many community leaders are questioning Water NZ’s lobbying role in chlorination water treatment, pipes and infrastructure, and its backing by business interests.
Chairman of the Glenorchy Community Association, John Glover, said his community was under pressure to chlorinate after representations by Water NZ to the local council.
But Glenorchy was at the base of the Southern Alps and there was no need to foist expensive treatment on the tiny community as a result of fearmongering about liability, he said.
‘‘I question why Water NZ has such access to the Government and councils. Why is this body running the rollout of information ahead of new legislation?
‘‘I understand that many council officers are members of groups like the Institution of Professional Engineers. But that organisation has special statutory disciplinary powers to regulate its members and also a role in setting engineering standards.’’
Many of Water NZ’s members work within councils and ministries, and are involved in efforts to introduce national standards to regions with differing water supply and safety characteristics.
Water NZ’s chairman is John Mackie, head of water and waste at Christchurch City Council which recently began controversial chlorination of the city’s water.
Other Water NZ board members include Auckland Council’s head of environmental services, and others are water treatment company executives.
The failure of Havelock North’s water safety, and the Government inquiry at the end of last year, was the opportunity for Water NZ and its members to warn of public health risks and advocate nationwide infrastructure upgrades and chlorination. Since then it has led seminars to councils in 17 centres promoting treatment.
The Havelock inquiry led to recommendations in a Beca report that prompted Christchurch City Council to recently agree to temporary chlorination of the pressurised artesian water supply.
The cost of Christchurch’s annual chlorination treatment has swollen from $690,000 to $2.5 million, but the more expensive improvements to wells, pumps, reservoirs, UV treatment and other items have soared to an unbudgeted $35m – more than 25 times initial estimates.
Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel and city councillors have said they are determined chlorination will be temporary. Some smaller Canterbury rural communities have recently pushed back and refused to add chemicals.
Former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore likened it to the meth scare or ‘‘disaster capitalism’’ and said Rolls-Royce water treatment and chlorination would cost hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide.
When Water NZ’s Pfahlert took the reins as chief executive in 2015, he embarked on a major restructure and new strategy – ‘‘to speak with one voice on the future of the water sector’’.
Documents on the Water NZ website promote water treatment, metering, charging, and centralised control along the lines of the Watercare model in Auckland.
Pfahlert said Water NZ prided itself on basing its policies on ‘‘good science’’ and finding a solution to amalgamate the 67-odd council-controlled water control organisations.
‘‘When you leave it to councils, it doesn’t seem to work,’’ he said.
Water NZ was a lead participant in a recent conference hosted by Local Government New Zealand, and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia where presenters outlined the benefits of centralised water management to 170 governmental and industry experts.
These conferences provide Water NZ with a majority of its income. It received $1.63m from seminar and conference income according to last year’s annual report.
It earned another $1.5m from grants, subscriptions and projects to a total of more than $3m in revenue. New fees from this year will see annual corporate subscriptions rise to $1500.
Expenses including $876,000 on salaries resulted in a loss last year of $18,000 but the organisation retains a healthy bank balance of nearly $1m.