Water Pressure Group NetNews

 
 

OPEN LETTER TO ATTORNEY- GENERAL MARGARET WILSON REQUESTING:

A) AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT WATERCARE FROM USING WAIKATO RIVER WATER AS A RAW SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER BECAUSE IN SO DOING - THEY HAVE NOT MINIMISED THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF AUCKLAND. THIS RISK WOULD BE MINIMISED BY
WATERCARE USING 'BEST RAW WATER FIRST'.

B) AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE BOARD OF METROWATER FROM SIGNING THE WATERCARE BULK WATER CONTRACT BECAUSE AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY TRADING ENTERPRISE (LATE) IT APPARENTLY HAS NO STATUTORY DUTIES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH UNDER THE HEALTH ACT 1956, AND THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONTRACT HAS MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT  INVOLVES THE USE OF WAIKATO RIVER WATER AS A RAW  SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER.

To Attorney-General
Margaret Wilson

25 June 2002

A) AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT WATERCARE FROM USING WAIKATO RIVER WATER AS A RAW SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER BECAUSE IN SO DOING - THEY HAVE NOT MINIMISED THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF  AUCKLAND. THIS RISK WOULD BE MINIMISED BY
WATERCARE USING 'BEST RAW WATER FIRST'.

The Water Pressure Group (Auckland) calls on you as Attorney- General to serve for an injunction against Watercare Services to restrain the commission of a public nuisance, being the use of the  Waikato river as a raw source of drinking water for people of  Auckland.
You have the power as Attorney-General to do so in the interest of public health, and we expect you to exercise that power.

We request this on the following grounds:

a) As a raw source of the drinking water, the polluted Waikato river has been proven to be injurious to health.  Waikato Medical Officer of Health issued a warning about Waikato river pollution on 5 April 2002. That warning concerned the high level of bacteria including hepatitis A, giardia and cryptosporidium
and sewerage in the Waikato river.

b) However, Auckland Medical Officers of Health on 18 June 2002 have stated that the treated Waikato river water will be safe to drink because it meets New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 2000.
(NZDWS 2000).

 For Auckland Medical Officers for Health to say that treated Waikato water meets drinking water standards, which only measure 137 of the thousands of chemicals and bugs that end up in the  Waikato river from leaching landfills, agricultural chemicals from  farm runoff, factory effluent, road pollutant runoff and sewerage  outflows - is NOT minimising the risk to public health.

Minimising the risk to public health, is to take 'raw' drinking water from the least contaminated source - not relying on water treatment.
This is not only international 'best practice', and plain old commonsense - it is Ministry of Health best practice, as set out in the Ministry of Health Public Health Risk Management Plan Overview:

"How to prepare and develop public health risk management plans for drinking water supplies.

  Making sure people have clean water to drink is an important step towards public health.
In the past, public health management of supplies relied largely on monitoring the quality of the water produced by individual water suppliers to check that it complied with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ).
While monitoring is always important, public health risk management plans for drinking water supplies provide the additional benefit of reducing the likelihood of contaminants entering supplies in the first place. By the time monitoring shows that contaminants are present, something has already gone wrong and a hazard is already present in the water.

Public health risk management plans encourage the use of risk management principles during treatment and distribution so that monitoring is not the only water quality management technique used and further reducing the risk of contamination.”
 

How can it be said that the Medical Officers for Health have carried  out all their statutory duties for public health, when known risks have not been managed or minimised?

c) Watercare Services have admitted that they have not yet completed a Public Health Risk Management Plan in respect of the  Waikato treatment plant.

Watercare Services were asked the following question under the Official Information Act:

"2) Can Watercare Services please supply a copy of the Public Health Risk Management Plans produced in general accordance with the Ministry of Health guides to manage the risk of using Waikato river water as a 'raw' source of drinking water, that have been produced by:

a)Environment Waikato (or before it, The Waikato Regional Council).
b)Watercare Services (as the drinking water supply 'wholesaler' to the Auckland region)
c)The Line Network Operators  who  'retail' drinking water supplies to the Auckland region.
d)The Auckland Local Authorities.

ANSWER RECEIVED FROM WATERCARE SERVICES :

2.  The information requested under your paragraphs (a), (c),  and   (d) is not currently held by Watercare.
In accordance  with the requirements of the Act, we will provide a copy of  your email to:

(a) Environment Waikato in relation to your request at paragraph (a);

(b) Metrowater, Manukau Water, EcoWater, North  Shore City Water Services Division, Rodney District  Water Services Unit and United Water International  in relation to your request at paragraph (c);

(c)  Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council,  Waitakere City  Council, North Shore City Council,  Rodney District Council and Papakura District  Council in relation to your request at paragraph (d).

In relation to your request at paragraph (b), Watercare is currently in the  process of completing a Public Health Risk Management Plan in respect of the Waikato treatment plant. "
   _________________________________________________________________________

d)   Watercare Services were asked a series of questions under the Official Information Act relating to knowledge of chemicals that were in the Waikato water in the vicinity of the water intake for the Waikato pipeline.

3) Can Watercare Services please provide an estimate of how many 'determinands' listed in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 2000 for which there are no MAVs  (Maximum Acceptable Values) - ie: not tested for - which  are likely to be present in the Waikato river in the immediate vicinity of the Waikato pipeline intake.

ANSWER:
3. The information requested is not held by Watercare, and cannot be made available without substantial research.  Watercarehas tested for all determinands in DWSNZ 2000  required of it by the Medical Officer of Health during a  recently conducted treatment plant proving test.
All determinands tested for were within acceptable values.

4) Can Watercare Services please provide an estimate of the total number of synthetic chemicals that which are not currently listed in the  New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 2000, and which  are potentially present in the Waikato river in the immediate vicinity of the Waikato pipeline intake.

ANSWER:
4.     Watercare is not able to provide the estimate requested, as it is not in possession of the necessary information on which it could accurately make such an estimate. It is normal  practice to test water supplies for those chemicals that are  considered to be   present at concentrations that may affect  public health over a lifetime of consumption. These are identified in DW5NZ 2000. Watercare has no information  on other synthetic chemicals.

5) Can Watercare Services please provide the information that you have about how any of the chemicals likely to be present in  Waikato water can react with each other, in combination, and the  future health effects that may result from drinking water that contains such chemicals.
 

ANSWER:
5.     Watercare has no such information. Health authorities and the organisations responsible for the establishing and  monitoring of standards, such as the World Health  Organisation, utilise a number   of specialists covering a wide  range of scientific disciplines to   protect public health. The  information those bodies collect is then used to set New  Zealand's drinking water standards, DWSNZ 2000.
Watercare provides drinking water that complies with  DWSNZ   2000.

6) Please provide all current information available to Watercare Services about chemicals, either listed in the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards 2000, or not,  which are known to bioaccumulate in the human body.

ANSWER:
6. Watercare has no such information. We will transfer your request to the Ministry of Health who may be in a better  position to respond to your request. "
 

  If  Watercare Services have no idea of what chemicals and  substances are in the Waikato river, and how they can affect people's health - how can they say, or the Auckland Medical  Officers of Health thus say that the treated Waikato water is safe to  drink?
Reliance on NZDWS 2000 only measures the 'tip of the contaminant iceberg' and does not minimise the risk to public  health.

Yet, when asked under the same OIA request:

" Have Watercare Services considered the commercial risk of providing polluted water to thousands of customers, if  your 'state of the art' water treatment fails for any reason, or if  future health problems eventuate from the effect of  contaminants in the water that were not currently listed in the  New Zealand Drinking Water Standards?

ANSWER:
." Watercare has considered the risks of providing polluted water from the Waikato pipeline. In response, we have put in place a comprehensive risk management process which  ensures that the design and operation of the plant along  with all other aspects of the system work together to  eliminate these risks. "

Watercare have NOT eliminated these risks. To minimise the  public health risks for current and future
generations of Aucklanders we call for 'best raw water first'.

B) AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE BOARD OF  METROWATER FROM SIGNING THE WATERCARE BULK  WATER CONTRACT BECAUSE AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY  TRADING ENTERPRISE (LATE) IT HAS NO STATUTORY  DUTIES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH UNDER THE HEALTH ACT 1956,  AND THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONTRACT HAS MAJOR  PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE  USE OF WAIKATO RIVER WATER AS A RAW SOURCE OF  DRINKING WATER.

    1) Auckland City Council, as a Local Authority has statutory duties under the Health Act 1956.

    “ 23 General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health.

        PART II   POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL   AUTHORITIES

    *   General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health--- Subject to the provisions of  this Act, it shall be the duty of every local authority  to promote and conserve the public health within its district, and for that purpose every local authority  is hereby empowered and directed--- …….

    c) If satisfied that any nuisance, or condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive, exists in the district, to cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal  of the condition:”
 __________________________________________________________________

2)  Has a LATE these same statutory duties?
3) Can these statutory duties be delegated to a LATE?
 

The following questions were asked by the Water Pressure Group under the Official Information Act of the CEO for Auckland City Council (30 May 2002), the CEO of Metrowater (6 June 2002) and the CEO of Watecare Services (6 June 2002):

 "Can you please advise what statutory duties for public health do Local Authority Trading Enterprises have under the Health Act 1956?

a) Watercare Services as the LATE water supply 'wholesaler' for the Auckland region.
b)Metrowater Ltd as the LATE water supply 'retailer' for Auckland City Council."

The only answer received to date was from Watercare Services on a letter dated 25 June 2002
(but received 24 June 2002).

ANSWER:
"Your request is for information which is not immediately available to Watercare. We would assume this information would be available from the Health Act 1956  which is publicly available. "

So, Watercare don't know if they have statutory duties under the Health Act 1956.
The Water Pressure Group asked the following question of those same bodies:

" Can a Local Authority, namely the Auckland City Council, effectively 'delegate' its statutory duties under the Health Act 1956 to a LATE, namely Metrowater Ltd? "

The only answer so far forthcoming was again from Watercare Services.

"This is not information which is currently held by Watercare. It should be a matter on which you can obtain  your own legal advice."

How can the public have any confidence that two LATEs, neither of whom appear to have any statutory duties for public health are going to make a major public health decision on bulk water supplies  which involve the use of Waikato water as a raw source of drinking  water.

Other councils in the Auckland region have passed best raw water first policies.

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL 29 MAY 2002:

"1.  That Council agrees in principle to enter into the proposed 10 May 2002 Agreement relating to the supply of bulk water with Watercare Services Limited for a three-year term commencing 1 July 2002 with a value of $26,211,738 excluding gst.

2.  That changes to the bulk water purchase costs and selling price of water as detailed in Table 1 in the report be recommended to the Annual Plan Hearings Committee.

3.  That prior to signing the contract, for the purpose of negotiating a North Shore City "best raw water first" schedule to that contract, Council obtains the following information and advice:

(a)  detailed cost information already requested from Watercare  Services Limited in regard to using the Waikato source on a  standby basis for drinking water supply;

(b)  options for a North Shore City Council schedule requiring  Watercare Services Limited to supply North Shore City according to  North Shore City Council's "best raw water first" policy"
_____________________________________________________

RESOLUTION PASSED BY WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL 29 MAY 2002:

"That the Waitakere City Council confirms its long-standing  opposition to the commissioning of the Waikato pipeline and that  our Shareholders Representative Group (SRG)  representative be  asked to support other Councils throughout the region in their call  for best water first and that Watercare be required to delay the
commissioning of the pipeline until agreed emergency trigger levels  are resolved.
That other Councils throughout the region be advised that achieving  best water first requires a commitment to water conservation  throughout the region."

_____________________________________________________
 
 

RESOLUTION PASSED BY RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL 10 MAY 2002

"That the "Agreement Relating To The Supply Of Bulk Water" (with Watercare Services Limited) dated 10 May 2002 not be entered into by Rodney District Council unless Watercare Services Ltd guarantees to ensure that Rodney District Council receives drinking water on the basis of "best raw water" first."

_______________________________________________________________

It is very reassuring to see that at least three Local Authorities in the Auckland region are taking their statutory duties for public health seriously.

The response received from Steve McDowell, Manager for Democracy Services of Auckland City Council, stated:

"The bulk water contract is a contract between Watercare Services Ltd and its customers, including Metrowater. Therefore, the contract has been negotiated between these parties, and Metrowater, rather than Auckland City, will be a party to the contract.
Accordingly, there was no delegation of decisions relating to the contract to Metrowater - these decisions never came within the area of responsibility of Auckland City.

Steven McDowell
Manager Democracy Services
Auckland City Council"
 

A letter from Metrowater to the General Manager of North Shore City Council Water Services on 14 June 2002 stated:

"Metrowater does not support restricting the operation of the Waikato Water Treatment Plant so that it is used on a stand by basis.

The reasons include:

The bulk Water Agreement is premised on Watercare providing water which meets the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand at the most efficient cost Metrowater considers that this requires Watercare to balance the cost, water quality and water security issues without consulting outside parties.

The Bulk Water Agreement requires Watercare to meet a 1 in 200 hundred year drought standard.  The regional demand currently exceeds the yield for this drought security and will not be met until both the Waikato Water Treatment Plant is commissioned and Cosseys Dam is repaired.

The Bulk Water Agreement place the obligation for meeting the unrestricted demand for this drought security standard on Watercare. Restricting the operation of the Waikato Water Treatment Plant would require substantial changes to the relationaships between the retail and wholesale operators as well as
sharing the water security risk between Watercare and the Local  Network Operators.

It is the position of Metrowater that the bulk water supply agreement should be signed to give certaintly to the many other issues between Watercare and Metrowater.

Consequently, Metrowater will be signing the contract at the first available opportunity.

Geoff Mabbett
CHIEF EXECUTIVE"
____________________________________________________________________________

NO mention anywhere of the public health implications.
 

When Watercare Services were asked in the previously mentioned OIA request:

" Is it true that Metrowater Ltd will be 'signing off' the Watercare bulk water contract for Auckland City Council?
 a) Upon whose authority?
b) Please supply all relevant correspondence between the Auckland City Council, Metrowater Ltd and Watercare Services on this matter.

WATERCARE'S ANSWER:

"Please provide us with more detail as to the nature of this information request. Particularly, what is meant by the phrase "signing off'? There has also been a significant amount of correspondence between Auckland City Council,  Metrowater and Watercare in respect of the bulk water  contract for Auckland City.
Please provide us with more detail as to what correspondence in particular you request.

"When is this contract to be signed?  "

WATERCARE'S ANSWER:
"The bulk water contract for Auckland City, to be entered into with Metrowater,is expected to be signed shortly. "

" Who, exactly, will be the signatories?"

WATERCARE'S ANSWER:

"At this stage it is not known who will be the signatories to the bulk water contract with Metrowater."

" Please can you provide a copy of the proposed Watercare bulk water contract for water supplies to the  Auckland City Council area."

WATERCARE'S ANSWER:
"Watercare will not provide a copy of the bulk water contract with Metrowater until similar contracts have been entered into with the other local network operators. The reason for this refusal is that the provision of the Metrowater contract at this stage would prejudice or disadvantage ongoing negotiations with the other local network operators in respect of their bulk water contracts."

The Water Pressure Group would like to draw your attention, Attourney General, to the legal precedent created in the case:
Read vs Croydon Corp 1938 4 ER 631 where a local authority was sued by a ratepayer for supplying polluted water.

Do we have to start collecting the names of thousands of ratepayers now, in preparation for a future class action?

Do we have to call on thousands more Aucklanders not to pay for water that may not be safe to drink?
_______________________________________________________

We expect you to treat this request with the utmost urgency  Attourney General.
The future health risk to hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders and their families is in your hands.
We look forward to you carrying out your role as a  public watchdog - not as a corporate lapdog.

On behalf of the Water Pressure Group (Auckland)

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Ph: (09) 846 9825

Reply