{"id":63579,"date":"2024-05-07T07:30:39","date_gmt":"2024-05-06T19:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/?p=63579"},"modified":"2024-07-12T09:19:07","modified_gmt":"2024-07-11T21:19:07","slug":"govt-undoing-protections-drinking-water-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/publication\/govt-undoing-protections-drinking-water-safety\/","title":{"rendered":"EXPERT BRIEFING: Govt undoing protections for drinking water safety"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Summary<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

After the world\u2019s largest recorded campylobacteriosis outbreak occurred in Havelock North in 2016, the National-led Government established a formal inquiry into what went wrong and lessons for the future. This led to policy changes to strengthen the protection of source water and improve the country\u2019s drinking water supply system. These changes included introducing Te Mana o te Wai, the central decision-making framework in the country\u2019s national freshwater policy. Te Mana o te Wai formally prioritises the protection of drinking water over commercial interests and other activities that could harm people\u2019s health through contaminated, or otherwise degraded, drinking water sources. <\/p>\n\n

However, the current National-led Coalition has begun disestablishing protections brought in after the Havelock North outbreak, going against the Inquiry and international best-practice for drinking water safety.<\/p>\n\n

It is critical that Ministers, and other policymakers, take stock of the suite of changes currently proposed and ensure that they are not setting the stage for another major outbreak.<\/p>\n\n

Havelock North outbreak the catalyst for strengthened drinking water policy<\/h3>\n\n

In 2017, the report of the Official Inquiry into the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak stated, \u201cAs time passes, knowledge of the circumstances of the August 2016 outbreak will fade and its immediate impact will be lost.\u201d The National-led Government established the Inquiry after the outbreak left an estimated six to eight thousand people sick, 42 hospitalised, and led to four deaths.1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

This was the largest waterborne campylobacteriosis outbreak ever reported, not only in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) but the world.1<\/sup>  However, it wasn\u2019t the only NZ outbreak caused by a contaminated drinking water supply in recent years. There had been others before Havelock North, in Darfield2<\/sup> and Cardrona.3<\/sup>  Additionally, more than 30,000 New Zealanders are estimated to experience gastrointestinal disease as a result of pathogen-contaminated drinking water each year.4<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n

As well as human health costs, Havelock North\u2019s outbreak was estimated to have cost the town over $21 million ($2,440\/household).5<\/sup> The Inquiry noted this was likely an underestimate and that there was also the risk of reputational damage to the country\u2019s tourism and export sectors.4<\/sup> Concerns were also raised about reputational damage from contaminated drinking water during Queenstown\u2019s cryptosporidium outbreak last year.6<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

As the Inquiry warned, the impact of the Havelock North outbreak appears to be fading from some memories. The current Government\u2019s policy programme is disestablishing protections for drinking water sources brought in after the outbreak, delaying reform on the delivery of water services and infrastructure improvements by repealing Three Water legislation, and introducing a fast-track process that would allow projects that override local government plans and rules for drinking water protection.<\/p>\n\n

The consequences of this policy programme may be obscured because changes are being made across several different water policies and other policy areas. However, together, these proposed changes represent a serious rollback of protection, and would make drinking water more vulnerable to contamination and increase the risk to people\u2019s health. <\/p>\n\n

Strengthened protections for drinking water and the Coalition Government\u2019s proposed changes<\/h3>\n\n

Delivering safe and good quality drinking water requires a cohesive and connected system across agencies and policies to ensure multiple barriers are in place to prevent contamination.4 7<\/sup> These multiple barriers (Appendix 1<\/a>) can be thought of like the \u2018Swiss cheese model\u2019<\/a> used to explain interventions to stop the spread of Covid-19. It was the failure of multiple agencies to implement these barriers that led to the Havelock North outbreak.8<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

As the Inquiry emphasised, source water protection \u201cprovides the first, and most significant, barrier against drinking water contamination and illness\u201d.4<\/sup> Source water refers to the waterbody that drinking water is drawn from (eg, lake, river or aquifer). Following the outbreak, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM 2020) was rewritten to require regional councils to prioritise the protection of drinking water sources over commercial interests (the Te Mana o te Wai framework). This was a major public health gain. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) was also amended to strengthen regional councils’ responsibility for source water protection (s 104\u2009G),9<\/sup> and a new National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water was drafted for the same purpose.10<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n

The Government is planning to undo or weaken these vital improvements (Table 1 \u2013 with more information on each policy change provided in Appendix 2<\/a>). Furthermore, the Government has signalled its intention to rewrite the RMA to prioritise the \u201cenjoyment of property rights\u201d (the current purpose of the Act is sustainable management, including \u201csafeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems\u201d).9 11<\/sup> It has also proposed the Fast-Track Approvals Bill that would mean regional plans (the main mechanism by which source water can be protected) could be over-ridden, and is likely to lead to large-scale projects that increase the pressure on and pollution of source water (eg, irrigation dams). Projects approved under the Bill are not required to prove they would not impact communities\u2019 source water. Additionally, the Government has delayed improvements to water infrastructure through repealing Three Waters reform.<\/p>\n\n

The combined effect of the Government\u2019s changes and proposals would mean serious weaknesses in protections for, and provision of, safe drinking water (Table 1 \u2013 with more information on each policy change provided in Appendix 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n

Table 1: Policy or legislation changes planned by the Government and their potential consequences for the safety of drinking water.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Policy or legislation<\/strong><\/th>Government\u2019s proposed changes and likely consequences for the safety of drinking water <\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Te Mana o te Wai (in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020)<\/strong><\/td>Te Mana o te Wai is the central decision-making framework of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) 2020.12<\/sup>Te Mana o te Wai was strengthened post-Havelock North by introducing a \u201chierarchy of obligations\u201d, which requires councils to prioritise the health of waterways and drinking water sources before considering commercial activities that can impact waterbodies.13<\/sup>This was an important and essential change, as it gave legal weight to the protection of drinking water sources that had not existed previously.14<\/sup> The Government announced last month that is would disapply Te Mana o te Wai from consenting decisions through an amendment to the RMA and reconfirmed its intention to \u201crebalance\u201d Te Mana o te Wai.15<\/sup> This is likely to mean a return to a previous iteration of the NPS-FM, where drinking water was not given priority over commercial uses of water (eg, for irrigation). <\/td><\/tr>
Rewriting the Resource Management Act 1991<\/strong><\/td>The RMA is the country\u2019s overarching policy for sustainable development.9<\/sup> It includes provisions to protect drinking water sources. These were amended following the outbreak to strengthen and clarify the responsibility regional councils have for source water protection (s 104\u2009G).9<\/sup>  The Coalition Government has reiterated its commitment to the coalition deal between National and ACT parties, which agreed the Government would rewrite the RMA to have as its priority \u201cthe enjoyment of property rights\u201d.11<\/sup>The protection of source water typically requires management of landscapes across multiple properties. Prioritising property rights in the RMA will result in the deprioritisation of the protection of the safety and quality of communities\u2019 drinking water. <\/td><\/tr>
National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water (NES-DW) 2007<\/strong><\/td>An updated NES-DW was publicly consulted on in 2022 and had been due to be updated in 2023.10<\/sup> For unclear reasons, updates have not been finalised in a revised policy. The Inquiry stated that its \u201cexpert panel and submitters were adamant that all drinking water supplies should receive similar quality safeguards and that the size of a drinking water supply should not determine the level of first barrier protection. The Inquiry firmly accepts this view. All consumers should have the benefits and protections of the [National Environmental Standards] Regulations\u201d.4<\/sup>However, the National Party stated in pre-election policy documents that it planned to amend the proposed NES-DW to avoid excessive compliance requirements for small providers of 30 connections or fewer\u201d.16<\/sup> This is likely to result in lesser protection for smaller communities\u2019 drinking water. <\/td><\/tr>
Fast-Track Approvals Bill<\/strong><\/td>Regional council planning is a key legal mechanism for protecting source water.17<\/sup> The Fast-Track Approvals Bill would allow Ministers to approve projects that are inconsistent with regional councils\u2019 plans. This means projects could go ahead even if they pose a risk to drinking water sources, either through pollution or otherwise degrading the waterbody (eg, taking too much water from the catchment in a way that impacts communities\u2019 access to water). <\/td><\/tr>
Repeal of Three Water reforms<\/strong><\/td>The Havelock North outbreak was the direct catalyst for the Three Waters reform.18<\/sup> A review into Aotearoa New Zealand\u2019s three waters (stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water) infrastructure began in mid-2017 to identify how to overcome the widespread neglect of water infrastructure.18<\/sup>The new Government repealed the Water Services Entities Act 2022 introduced by the Labour-led Government, which was designed to overcome the challenges for councils in raising sufficient funds and other limitations to delivering water infrastructure. Delaying improvements to water infrastructure is likely to have public health consequences, particularly if drinking water sources have less protection under the law.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n

Why drinking water standards are not enough to protect people from contaminated drinking water<\/h3>\n\n

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has emphasised the need for strict standards for water quality.19<\/sup> Drinking water standards are important as part of the precautionary approach to contaminants in drinking water and outbreak prevention. However, standards alone are not enough to achieve safe, good quality drinking water. As previously stated, multiple barriers must be implemented through cohesive and connected policies and agencies (Appendix 1<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n

Despite the existence of drinking water standards for some time in NZ, some communities have had their drinking water contaminated to levels above the limits specified in these standards. Drinking water standards existed before the events in Havelock North but did not prevent the outbreak. In the case of Waimate, Environment Canterbury granted consents knowing that the effect would likely be the town\u2019s water source being contaminated above standards for nitrate (this was prior to the introduction of the Te Mana o te Wai \u201chierarchy of obligations\u201d and the RMA improvements). The town\u2019s supply exceeded nitrate standards just seven years later.20<\/sup> Another pathogen, cryptosporidiosis, also causes occasional outbreaks despite the existence of specific quality standards for excluding this pathogen from drinking water.21 22<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n

Conclusions<\/h3>\n\n

Through the Havelock North outbreak and the subsequent inquiry, NZ learned hard and important lessons about the severe impact of contaminated drinking water and best practice approaches to strengthen the country\u2019s drinking water system. However, the Coalition Government is unwisely, and currently largely unaccountably, dismantling improvements made or initiated for the protection of drinking water in the aftermath of the outbreak. It is critical that Ministers and other policy makers take stock of the suite of changes proposed and ensure that they are not setting the stage for the next Havelock North type disaster.
 <\/p>\n\n

What is new in this Briefing <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n