Chlorine in water could have been avoided
Chlorinating Christchurch’s water could have been avoided if council staff had been warned of the city’s water infrastructure problems earlier, the city’s top leaders say.
Councillors and senior leaders were left in the dark for seven months about deficiencies with the city’s water infrastructure after staff failed to alert them to the problems.
Substandard wells were discovered in
May last year, but Mayor Lianne Dalziel and councillors were only told in January, after the drinking water assessor had removed the city’s secure bore status.
Dalziel and some elected members said knowing earlier would have allowed them to get on top of fixing wells – and that they would probably not have voted to chlorinate.
The mayor said: ‘‘If we’d been able to establish this process seven months before we lost our secure status then we would have been having public conversations – we may have even made a different decision [over treatment].’’
Not treating the water could have saved residents months of heartache over chlorination issues and tens of thousands of dollars many had to pay for new boilers reportedly damaged by the disinfectant. It could have also potentially saved up to $6 million, money which could have helped fund the costly well head improvement programme.
As of June 30 the council had spent $2.57m setting infrastructure for chlorination, while another $1.1m is budgeted this financial year for ongoing operational costs.
Another $2.25m will be required to install UV treatment at main pumps in Beckenham, one of the city’s biggest stations, along with $75,000 a year for running costs.
While no cash has yet been spent, council staff have promised the plant will be running by June.
UV treatment is also being considered for another 11 pump stations around the city, potentially costing $24m.
In his review into the management of bore water security,
former assistant Auditor-General Bruce Robertson said it was ‘‘likely’’ earlier escalation of the issue would not have had a ‘‘significant impact’’ on the extent of problems, including temporary chlorination.
But asked about the council’s decision if they had been warned earlier, Cr Raf Manji said: ‘‘I seriously doubt whether we would have chlorinated. It was a major step and none of us liked doing it.
‘‘It’s obviously the expense of it, but the inconvenience to the public in all manner of outcomes around the water itself, in terms of smell and taste and adverse health reactions.
‘‘There’s no way we would have taken a decision like that unless we were really forced to do so and we thought there was a public health issue.
‘‘I don’t think anywhere along the line has there been a public health issue.’’
Manji said that if councillors had been told in May they would have asked the same questions as during well head improvements in the city’s north west two years ago – ‘‘is there any concern about the quality of the water supply?’’.
‘‘The answer would have been the same answer we got this year when I asked the same question, and the answer was ‘no, there is no issue’,’’ Manji said.
‘‘Did we need to upgrade and deal with some of those maintenance issues? Absolutely, but we could have gone on and done it, and we could have isolated those wells if we’d needed to . . .
‘‘If [the information] had come to us mid-2017 we . . . could have dealt with it in a very different way without still having any concern about the water supply itself.’’