A drinking water crisis
Primary schools, a hospital and government department have drinking water schemes that fall short of basic health standards. Charlie Mitchell reports.
Primary schools, a hospital and a government agency are among suppliers running drinking water schemes that don’t meet basic health standards.
It is just the tip of an iceberg. As the Government prepares to overhaul the drinking water system, its own figures indicate that well over 1 million people may be drinking water that isn’t demonstrably safe, and the vast majority of supplies aren’t regulated at all.
Even those that need to meet standards often don’t, and face no consequence when they fall short. The Ministry of Health has never taken enforcement action against a drinking water supplier, despite acknowledging hundreds of breaches of the Health Act since 2007.
One international drinking water expert said an outbreak similar to the one that afflicted Havelock North in 2016 was inevitable, and wide-ranging changes needed to be made.
An analysis of drinking water compliance records, along with Cabinet papers and briefings about drinking water reform, reveals a dysfunctional system in which basic data is unavailable and public health is left in the hands of small community groups, private companies and under-resourced councils.
The Government estimates about 34,000 people become sick every year from their drinking water. Other estimates have put that number as high as 100,000.
It also believes about 810,000 people drink water that is not regulated, which in 95 per cent of cases is likely to not meet drinking water standards. A further 900,000 people drink water not adequately tested for cryptosporidium and giardia, parasitic micro-organisms that are among the most common cause of sickness outbreaks worldwide.
Changes to the drinking water system have been planned since the 2016 outbreak in Havelock North, which was tied to at least four deaths and made thousands of people sick. It was the largest outbreak of waterborne campylobacteriosis recorded anywhere in the world.
An inquiry after the outbreak, which included evidence from a panel of international experts, pointed to serious failings in New Zealand’s drinking water infrastructure and made numerous recommendations for reform, including an independent drinking water regulator.
The Government agreed to set up such a regulator last year, which is expected to be operational in 2021.
It has a tough task ahead. Under the proposed changes, regulation will be extended from about 800 registered suppliers to several thousand, many of them tiny networks supplying fewer than 25 people that have never been required to meet health standards.
It is not clear how many suppliers would be regulated; government figures estimate between 1130 and 5650 such supplies exist, providing water to anywhere between 22,600 and 113,000 people. About 95 per cent of those supplies would not meet current drinking water standards.
A further 300,000 people drink self-supplied water, and will remain outside the regulatory system.
Not only will the regulator need to enforce rules on supplies that have never had to meet drinking water standards, it will have to address a history of flagrant non-compliance among the supplies already regulated.
Supplies that serve more than 100 people need to comply with the Health Act, which requires doing things such as regular quality testing, recording and dealing with complaints, and having a water safety plan. They also need to take ‘‘all practicable steps’’ to meet drinking water standards, which cover three types of contaminants: bacteria, protozoa and chemicals.
The most recent available data, covering the year 2017 to 2018, shows nearly one in three supplies were in breach of the Health Act, and more were not meeting the drinking water standards. Among them were two primary schools, a hospital, a government agency, and numerous councils.
The rate of non-compliance has been steadily increasing. In 2014, 7 per cent of supplies breached the Health Act; it is now 32 per cent, in large part due to the broadening of standards to include smaller supplies.
Despite this increasing rate of non-compliance, it has never resulted in enforcement action which was a concern, said Dr Colin Fricker, a UK-based drinking water expert who was part of the scientific panel for the Havelock North inquiry.
‘‘The real issue is that [the water] is very poorly monitored and regulated compared to most other developed countries, therefore we don’t really know how good or how bad it is,’’ he said.
‘‘If you break the rules, so what? Nothing happens. If you break the rules in the UK, you’d get fined millions, or the regulator would come in and say, you didn’t do it, so we’ll do it, at your cost.’’
Fricker echoed the overall findings of the Havelock North inquiry, which painted an often damning picture of the drinking water regulatory regime.
Its stage two report, released in 2018, described the Ministry of Health’s enforcement policy and implementation as ‘‘inept’’, and said the inquiry was ‘‘unable to discern any leadership activity by the ministry, at any time’’ in relation to Health Act breaches by drinking water providers.
‘‘A lack of accountability underlies the current poor compliance levels prevalent throughout New Zealand,’’ it said.
‘‘In many cases, these have continued for many years with no apparent sanction or accountability.’’
When asked by Stuff about its lack of enforcement, the ministry acknowledged it had never taken action against a drinking water supplier, but said doing so was not the only way to achieve compliance.
‘‘Drinking water assessors always consider the need for compliance before enforcement and have found that education and persuasion achieve the best outcomes in cases of noncompliance,’’ a ministry spokeswoman said.
‘‘For example, the failure to meet the monitoring requirements by missing the collection of a single water sample has minor public health significance and enforcement is not necessary.’’
[The water] is very poorly monitored and regulated compared to most other developed countries. Dr Colin Fricker, UK-based drinking water expert.
Compliance records
Because so many supplies are not regulated, it is unclear whether the water they provide is safe to drink.
The unregulated supplies providing drinking water to 810,000 people are likely to include schools, universities, airports, prisons, campgrounds, marae and papakā inga. Many of those will be provided water by local authorities and government agencies.
Examining the compliance record of supplies that are regulated shows how difficult it could be to raise the standards of smaller supplies. Of the 493 supplies providing water to more than 100 people, 164 failed to meet all the requirements of the Health Act. More failed to meet the drinking water standards; 1 million people drink regulated water that does not meet all of the standards.
Inadequate testing was the main reason that a supply breached the law: 146 supplies failed on this measure. The records do not show the extent of each failure, which could range from missing one test to not doing any testing at all.
Some, however, were making basic failures. Among the most important contaminants to test for is E coli, which can easily enter a supply and cause widespread sickness, particularly in rural areas. At least 22 suppliers did not test for E coli at all. Among them was a primary school in rural Mid-Canterbury surrounded by dairy farms.
The number of suppliers that failed the monitoring requirements was higher than usual due to drinking water assessors showing less leniency after the Havelock North crisis, the ministry said. Inadequate testing was not the only reason for failure. About 30 supplies, providing water to about 35,000 people, were deemed to be ‘‘failing to take appropriate action to protect public health after an issue was discovered’’.
In most cases, these suppliers were local authorities. Six were in communities supplied by the Taupō District Council, and another six were supplied by the Clutha District Council. Other suppliers that failed for this reason were the district councils of Whakatā ne, Rangitikei, Carterton, Masterton, Tasman, Selwyn, Mackenzie, and Waitaki.
Repeat offenders
Because compliance has been
recorded since 2008, it is possible to track suppliers repeatedly in breach of their legal obligations.
There are several, but one notable offender is the New Zealand Defence Force. It runs five supplies at its training camps and bases, collectively supplying water to more than 10,000 people.
Records show it has consistently failed to comply with both the Health Act and drinking water standards.
In 2018, all five of its supplies were not complying with the Health Act, with particular problems at its Waiouru camp.
The Waiouru supply, records say, did not have a current water safety plan, failed its monitoring requirements, and did not take appropriate action to protect public health after an issue was discovered. Compliance records show the last time NZDF’s Waiouru supply met the requirements was in 2012.
NZDF ‘‘has been working hard to upgrade both infrastructure and the administration of water at its camps and bases’’, a spokesperson said. ‘‘Major upgrades to both Burnham and Tekapo water supplies have been finished and are in the final stages of commissioning. Planning is under way for upgrades at Waiouru and Linton.’’
NZDF was prioritising this work and placed the utmost importance on the safety and compliance of its water supplies, the spokesperson said.
Some moderately sized townships routinely fail to meet the requirements of the Health Act, the drinking water standards, or both.
Among them is Feilding, population nearly 15,000, which has not complied with the Health Act or drinking water standards since at least 2013. Dannevirke, population 6000, last complied with the Health Act in 2015, and has not met the drinking water standards since 2010.
A new regulator
In a Cabinet paper outlining issues with the drinking water regime, it was clear the lack of enforcement was a concern.
‘‘Existing exemptions from drinking water regulation, and a lack of enforcement around compliance with current drinking water and environmental standards, has meant that investment in water infrastructure has not always been made or prioritised,’’ it said.
Expanding the regulatory system is likely to come at a high cost, particularly for smaller suppliers. Upgrading all networked supplies to meet drinking water standards would cost an estimated $620 million to $1.18 billion, according to an analysis by engineering consultancy Beca.
Doing so would be a minor component of Government spending, however; it recently announced $12b in infrastructure spending, $5.3b of which would be spent on roads.
While a new independent regulator was welcome, it would not in itself address the issues, Fricker said. He believed there needed to be more collaboration between suppliers:
‘‘There are a number of places where the expertise just isn’t available, so group schemes, or some way of pooling resources, is going to be very necessary.’’
There is evidence this is starting to happen. In South Wairarapa, water supplied by the council consistently breached standards; in 2018, all supplies in the district were noncompliant with the Health Act and drinking water standards. It has since joined Wellington Water, which supplies drinking water to cities across Wellington, which will manage the district’s drinking water.
Earlier this week, five councils in the central South
Island said they had applied for funding to investigate collaboration on water services.
Without major reform, an outbreak similar to the one in Havelock North was highly likely, Fricker said.
‘‘There will be another outbreak – hopefully it will be a small one, and there won’t be any loss of life, but there are larger communities than Havelock North that are more at risk than they were, in my opinion.
‘‘It’s just a question of many things going wrong at the same time, and then there will be another outbreak.’’