Marlborough Express - Weekend Express
Water reforms signal higher costs
Households and farms hooked into a small Kaiko¯ura water supply are facing higher costs as a result of the government’s Three Waters reforms.
The East Coast water scheme supplies untreated bore water to 34 properties, including 13 in Clarence village.
No cases of contamination or sickness as a result of domestic use of the water have been recorded in its 44-year history.
But the Kaiko¯ura District Council says it can no longer ignore the fact that the scheme does not comply with the New Zealand drinking water standards.
In a report to the council, operations manager Dave Clibbery said smaller water supplies were supposed to have met the standards of the 2008 Health (Drinking Water) Act by 2016, but a number had still not done so.
That was not something the goverment’s new national water authority Taumata Arowai would be likely to tolerate, he said.
‘‘This new authority will come into effect early in 2021 and an almost certain consequence will be stronger action against operators of water supplies that are not meeting their legal obligations.’’
The trigger for the government’s reform of water services around the country was the contamination of a council bore at
Havelock North which made 5000 people sick, killed four and left others with serious permanent health damage in 2016.
The government is now making grants to councils to upgrade their water services before they are taken over by new regional entities under Taumata Arowai.
The Kaiko¯ura council has been allocated $1.88 million, to fund work on water and wastewater systems it would not otherwise have done.
The (East Coast) bore was historically classified as secure, safely drinkable without treatment but that status had been revoked by the Ministry of Health, he said.
There were several options for bringing the East Coast scheme up to standard, Clibbery said.
The simplest would be to chlorinate and UV treat all the water, for about $200,000 and an annual operating cost of $25,000 a year. But it would be hard to keep chlorine levels constant over nearly 50km of pipeline, and there was a perception that stock did not like chlorinated water.
Another option was to class the whole scheme as non-potable (not safe for human consumption) and have all 34 households switch to rainwater for domestic use, installing tanks, pumps and connections at their own expense.
A third option was to split the scheme, bulk-treating the water for Clarence Village at a cost of $100,000 and annual operating costs of about $10,000 a year.
In that case, the water going to the 21 rural properties would be classed as non-potable.
Rural owners would have to show they had alternative sources of potable water in place and sign statutory declarations that they would not use the bore water for that purpose.
The treatment system for Clarence Village would be covered by the government grant, but the farmers’ costs would not, Clibbery said.
The rural properties use most of the water for stock and had different needs from the small residential properties he said.
‘‘Unit water costs for customers of these two supplies could be significantly different, with a potential significant increase in cost for village properties, associated with the treatment plant.
‘‘But that could be offset by no longer having to contribute to the maintenance and renewal of the 94 per cent of pipes the villagers did not use, and limited pumping power costs.
Splitting the scheme might be the best option and should be presented to members of the water scheme for discussion, Clibbery said.
‘‘This or any of the feasible options will probably not be welcomed as it is likely to result in increased cost for all and as such, discussion may not be easy.’’