Opinion: “As time passes, knowledge of the circumstances of the August 2016 outbreak will fade and its immediate impact will be lost.” This statement is from the 2017 report of the Official Inquiry into the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak. The then National-led government established the inquiry after the outbreak left an estimated 6000-8000 people sick, hospitalised 42, and led to four deaths.
It was the largest water-borne campylobacteriosis outbreak reported in the world. The disaster of the contamination of Havelock North’s water supply exposed the weaknesses in the policies and agencies that deliver our most fundamental of needs.
Havelock North wasn’t an anomaly. Though by far the largest, it hadn’t been the only outbreak caused by a contaminated drinking water supply in recent years. Before 2016, there were smaller outbreaks in Darfield and Cardrona. Additionally, as the inquiry found, more than 30,000 New Zealanders were estimated to experience gastrointestinal disease as a result of contaminated drinking water each year.
We knew then things needed to change but less than eight years later, as warned, memories appear to be fading. The Government is proposing to undo much of the progress made to strengthen the protection of drinking water. The full impact of their roll back may be obscured as the changes are across several policies. But considered together the weakening of the protection in law for drinking water is serious.
Providing safe, good quality drinking water requires the implementation of multiple barriers of protection; starting with the protection of the source (the waterbody the supply is drawn from) and progressing with sound infrastructure, adequate treatment, and good monitoring. It was the failure of more than one barrier that led to Havelock North’s outbreak. Robust implementation of the barriers requires policies that are cohesive and interconnected. It also requires agencies that have clear roles, adequate resources, and accountability.
Following the outbreak, some key progress had been made to strengthen and clarify agencies’ responsibilities in our drinking water supply system.
One essential change was to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which was rewritten to prioritise the protection of drinking water sources over commercial interests, through the Te Mana o te Wai decision making framework. This was a major public health gain as it finally gave drinking water the necessary weight in law and planning. As the Inquiry had written, “in the absence of specific recognition, the protection of drinking water sources could easily be overtaken by competing pressures”. Additionally, the Resource Management Act was amended to strengthen regional councils’ responsibility for drinking water, and a new National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water had been drafted for the same purpose.
However, the Government is planning to undo these gains, including deprioritising the protection of drinking water under the National Policy Statement, saying it will “rebalance” Te Mana o te Wai. This most likely means commercial interests will win out over the protection of drinking water; as they have done for many years, even when regional councils knew in advance that granting consents would contaminate people’s drinking water. The inquiry had identified a “no responsibility mindset” around drinking water source protection in regional councils, and stressed the need for policy changes that made councils’ responsibilities far more explicit.
Furthermore, the Government has signalled its intention to rewrite the Resource Management Act to prioritise the “enjoyment of property rights” (the current purpose of which is sustainable management, including “safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems”). They have also proposed the Fast-Track Approvals Bill that would override regional plans (the main mechanism by which source water can be protected) and is likely to lead to large-scale projects that increase the pressure on and pollution of source water (irrigation dams for example). Projects approved under the Bill are not required to prove they would not affect source water.
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has reiterated the need for strict standards for water quality, and drinking water standards are undoubtedly important. However, standards alone are not enough to achieve safe, good-quality drinking water. Drinking water standards existed before Havelock North’s outbreak.
Through the Havelock North outbreak, the country learned hard and important lessons about the severe impact of contaminated drinking water, and, through the Inquiry, we learned how to strengthen the country’s drinking water system. However, the Government is unwisely, and currently largely unaccountably, dismantling gains made in the aftermath.
As well as Brown, ministers with responsibility for these changes include the Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds, Minister for Resource Management Reform Chris Bishop, and Minister for Agriculture Todd McClay, among others.
It is critical these ministers, and other policymakers, take stock of the suite of changes proposed and ensure that they are not setting the stage for the next Havelock North-type disaster.
A longer version of this article appears on The Public Health Expert Briefing published by the Public Health Communication Centre.
The post Govt risks another Havelock North by undoing water protections appeared first on Newsroom.