POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

Transcription

1 POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Meeting to be held at Murupara Area School, 84 Pine Drive, Murupara commencing at 9:30 am Marty Grenfell CHIEF EXECUTIVE 13 February 2018

2

3 WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE - AGENDA TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2018 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT PAGE NO 1 Reports Water Safety Report - Treatment of Water Supplies Appendix 1 - Letter from Director General of Health December Appendix 2 - Letter from BOP District Health Board January

4 WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE - AGENDA TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY Reports 1.1 Water Safety Report - Treatment of Water Supplies Page 4

5 Water Safety Report Treatment of Water Supplies Subject: To: WATER SAFETY REPORT TREATMENT OF WATER SUPPLIES POLICY COMMITTEE Meeting Date: TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2018 Written by: File Reference: MANAGER THREE WATERS PLANNING & ASSET MANAGEMENT A REASON FOR THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide details of the District s water supplies which currently have limited treatment and no disinfection throughout the network, with options presented for each of these systems. This report builds on those provided to the Audit and Risk Committee on 5 September 2017 (Whakatāne District Water Supplies Quality Compliance and Contamination Risk Analysis) and Projects and Services Committee on 1 February 2018 (Security and Safety of District Water Supplies), which outline the status of all supplies and improvement programme. 2 BACKGROUND In August 2016, a serious water contamination event occurred in Havelock North with an outbreak of campylobacteriosis affecting around 5,500 people. The Government Inquiry into the Havelock North contamination event is now complete and Stage 2 of the report has provided important recommendations to the Government for the safe management of drinking water supplies. Although the Government is considering these recommendations, the Director General of Health has issued a general statement (Appendix A ) encouraging drinking-water suppliers to consider implementing appropriate and effective treatment, including disinfection of reticulated networks. The Bay of Plenty District Health Board has issued a letter directly to Council (Appendix B ) advocating the introduction of chlorine treatment for the Murupara water supply scheme. Water contamination is a real threat to people s health, as seen from the Havelock North incident. Chlorination is the most effective means of minimising risk of public illness as a result of water contamination and is seen as the last barrier of protection. It is an effective barrier against contamination, because it protects the entire drinking water network, from the treatment plant to the consumer s tap. Anything less is seen to be accepting a level of risk to water consumers. Within the Bay of Plenty region, Kawarau and Whakatāne District Council are the only two territorial authorities that have some municipal water supplies which are not disinfect via chlorination. In light of Havelock North recommendations, Kawarau District Council is currently reviewing its water supply treatment. Last month, Christchurch City Council voted, although not unanimously, to have water supplies chlorinated, thus dramatically reducing the risk of contamination. This move may also assist the A Page 1 of 10 5

6 Government with its national decision-making policy process on appropriate disinfection of water supplies. Council has reviewed known Council water supplies within the District and has identified that there are a number of water supplies which don t have any residual disinfection. These water supplies are Murupara, Penetito, Pikowai Camp and Galatea Hall. Another non-disinfected water supply exists in Ruatāhuna. This is being operated by Hinepukohurangi Trust, but Council is currently the owner of the resource consent for the water take. In addition to Council water supplies, there are a number of private or collaborative water supplies within the district which Council has only limited knowledge of, and these systems may or may not be registered with the Department of Health. With these schemes, it is only when the management and/or land ownership changes that Council becomes aware of them. This generally triggers a conversation on the possibility of transferring either full schemes or individual customers, to Council water supply schemes, where possible. Council does not budget for any of these private supplies, but at times, expends staff-hours on investigations. It is imperative that the Whakatāne District Council fully understands the status of all District water supply schemes, in particular the non-disinfected ones, so that existing contamination and continuity of supply risks are understood. A commitment to continue and, where identified, accelerate water supply system improvements is essential. 3 LEGAL OPINION The following are the legal responsibilities of delivering water supplies to either individual and or municipal customers. The following advice from Council s lawyers states that: Under the Health Act, the primary responsibility of Council as set out in Part 2A of the Health Act, that is, pursuant to section 69V of the Act, are to take all practicable steps to ensure that the drinking water it supplies complies with the drinking-water standards. However, Council will comply with that requirement if it implements those provisions of an approved Water Safety Plan (WSP). The term all practical steps is defined in section 69H as follows: A Page 2 of 10 6

7 The term networked supplier, is defined in section 69G of the Health Act 1956 (Health Act) as follows: Council is also a drinking-water supplier, which is defined, as far as is relevant, in section 69G as: A self-supplier is defined in the Health Act as: A specified self-supplier has the meaning set out in section 69J(1)(b) of the Health Act: A Page 3 of 10 7

8 Council is not a drinking-water supplier in respect of any private water supply, because it is not the person or entity that supplies the water. Accordingly, sections 69S to 69ZC of the Health Act, which are the sections that set out the duties of drinking-water suppliers, do not apply to Council in respect of those supplies. Council does, however, have certain general powers and duties under section 23 of the Health Act. These include an overarching duty to improve, promote and protect public health within the district and to regularly inspect its district for any conditions likely to be injurious to health, take proper steps to abate or remove such conditions, and provide to the medical officer of health such reports on drinking water as he/she may require. This is a broad statutory duty that Council should take care to observe, but is not of a nature that could give rise to any liability. Council must, under section 125 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), from time to time assess the provision within its district of water services including water supply. Pursuant to section 126 of the LGA, the purpose is, inter alia, to assess, from a public health perspective, the adequacy of water supply services, in light of the health risks to communities arising from any deficiency in such services, and the extent to which drinking water provided by water supply services (limited to drinking water provided by network reticulation) meets applicable regulatory standards. However, there is no duty on Council to intervene in relation to any deficiency identified in a private supply, and indeed no authority in the LGA to do so. 4 POLICY As outlined in the report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 5 September 2017 (Whakatāne District Water Supplies Quality Compliance and Contamination Risk Analysis), Council s existing networked water supplies for Whakatāne/Ōhope, Tāneatua, Rūātoki, Waimana, Plains (including Te Teko), Edgecumbe, Matatā and Te Mahoe all utilise chlorine as the disinfection treatment to control bacteria and viruses. Adoption of the recommendation to chlorinate the Murupara and Penetito network supplies will bring both these supplies in-line with all other Council networked supplies. For Pikowai Camp and Galatea Hall, these supplies meet the self-supplier definition within the Health Act and Council will address these two systems through a risk management process and install the necessary equipment/infrastructure to minimise the risks. For private water supplies where Council receives enquiries from the supply owner, Council will deal with these on a case-by-case basis. 5 UNTREATED WATER SUPPLIES OPTIONS AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION NEEDED FOLLOWING HAVELOCK NORTH STAGE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS The following are technical background information and options for the known untreated water supplies within the Whakatāne District area of operation. A Page 4 of 10 8

9 5.1 Murupara Murupara Water Supply has two bores and a water pumping station located on Crown-owned road reserve, from where water is pumped to surface reservoirs located on Trust Lands legally described as 866A SH38 Kāingaroa Forest. Drinking Water for New Zealand indicates that this is a Network Supply; Code: GAL003; Local authority: Whakatāne District Council, and it is required to report for compliance. The system operates under a Public Health Risk Management Plan created and approved in A Water Safety Plan is now required for this scheme and is currently being developed by Council Consultants, in close co-operation with our Drinking Water Assessor. Due to the inferred risk, Council has increased water sampling from the DHB required 11-day spacing to twice a week, to minimise any delay in the detection of biological contamination. Land ownership issues and difficult site access to the Murupara reservoirs elevates the risk profile for the system and vandalism is an ongoing issue at this site. Negotiations with Ngāti Manawa to legally secure a licence to occupy the reservoir site headworks land need to be resolved. There is no disinfection (filtration, chlorine, ultra-violet, etc.) within this system. Risks relating to quality and biological contamination include reservoir vandalism and backflow of contaminants into A Page 5 of 10 9

10 the water supply from agricultural and horticultural water consumers in the area, along with ageing infrastructure Murupara Water Treatment Public Survey Three hui were held with Murupara residents in October 2017 to discuss the rationale for introducing water treatment processes, outline the readily available options, and gain feedback on the community s preferences. Approximately 50 people attended the three hui (two organised by Ngāti Manawa and one by the Murupara Community Board). The feeling of all three meetings was initially quite hostile, but the people attending became more relaxed when they realised the Council representatives were not there to force any particular course of action on the community and were ready to listen to their views and concerns. An explanatory leaflet, survey form and prepaid reply envelope were then distributed to all connected properties with roadside letterboxes. A total of 263 survey forms were returned, representing approximately one-third of the potential sample and the results were overwhelmingly opposed (more than 94%) to chlorine treatment of the water supply. The results are shown in the following table. Murupara Water Treatment Survey Outcomes Options Support Oppose No response Filtration 96 (36.5%) 159 (60.5%) 8 (3.0%) UV Treatment 94 (35.7%) 162 (61.6%) 7 (2.7%) Chlorine Treatment 9 (3.4%) 248 (94.3%) 6 (2.3%) Based on the above, it would be safe to assume that the survey results are indicative of the feeling of the wider Murupara population. The hui feedback and survey form commentary indicate a level of distrust generally about the motivations behind the water treatment initiative, with many people suggesting that this would be an excuse to increase rates charges that are already too high, without providing any real benefit to the community. The community also has a strong sense of ownership of the resource, with Council s function seen as being a delivery agent only essentially, look after the pipes, but don t touch our water Murupara Infrastructure The majority of the infrastructure for this water supply was installed in the 1950s and the known infrastructure within this system contains: two artesian bores water pumping station with back-up diesel pump 3 water storage tanks (located on Trust lands) pipework, valves, water meter, power and electrical switchboard Approximately 20,780 metres of reticulated network 832 properties connected A Page 6 of 10 10

11 5.1.3 Murupara Compliance Basic information on current compliance for Murupara water source is: Murupara Compliance Comment System Risk - No disinfection. Bores are not considered secure by DHB. Backflow risk. Water safety plan No Requires a new plan in progress (due March 2018) Catchment risk analysis Yes Completed December 2017 Water Sampling Yes Every 3 days (increased from every 11 days) E.Coli compliance Yes Monitored and reported to DHB DHB compliance No No protozoa treatment. No chlorine residual in reticulated water. No water safety plan (preparation in progress) Murupara Options (in order of technical preference based on contamination risk reduction) Based on contamination risk reduction preference, the following options are presented for Council consideration: 1. Install a full set of treatment contamination barriers (for both protozoa and bacteria); that is chlorination system (approximately $200k), backflow prevention system (approximately $475k) and UV treatment system (approximately $150k). This option includes the installation of a real time water quality monitoring system via telemetry, to allow for rapid response to contamination events in the pipeline, and would take the approximate total cost to $825,000. This option would involve: 1. An additional ongoing maintenance, whilst giving appropriate contamination barriers 2. Additional operational costs 3. Increase in renewals and replacement of infrastructure assets This and any of further listed options involving treatment of water will not be positively received by the community. 2. Install a contamination barrier for bacterial contamination only Install a chlorination system and backflow prevention system (approximate cost of $675,000) 3. Install only a chlorination system (approximate cost of $200,000) 4. Provide a backflow prevention system to the entire network (approximate cost of $475,000) 5. Do nothing option, this option would have: 1. Status quo arrangement, but increased operational cost for additional monitoring and this is compounded travel time and costs 2. No additional headworks/infrastructure cost 3. Inferred risk of water contamination 4. An ongoing risk to Council s image if do nothing option is adopted and a water contamination event occurs. A Page 7 of 10 11

12 Currently, within the Annual Plan (AP), Murupara has a budget of $300k for works associated with Water Safety Plan improvements. Additional Water Safety Plan works of $300k ( ) have been highlighted within the LTP, which is yet to be adopted. Council may also entertain the idea of installation of a single dedicated pipeline from the bore to a central location within the township for public access giving customers the option of untreated natural water. This consideration would need to be explored from a health and legal perspective and will require additional investigation. 5.2 Penetito Penetito Water Supply (also referred to as Galatea Road Water Supply) is located on Penetito Trust Lands at 515 MacDonald Road in Te Teko (Legal Description: Allot 60D1B2D2 Rangitāiki PSH) and the resource consent for water take is in the name of the Trust. Whakatāne District Council use of this water was established via an Access Licence Agreement between the Trustees of Penetito Land Trust and Council on 8 October 2003 and was called a temporary water supply to the Tuariki Marae and residences on Galatea and MacDonald Roads. The intent was that this temporary water supply would be in used until such time as a Matahina Dam source (or other) was established, whereby all Council equipment would be removed from the Trust land. In the early 2000s, it was intended to utilise the Matahina Dam lake as the main water source for the Plains Water Supply, whereby the area in question would be supplied from a large pipeline passing through the area. Drinking Water for New Zealand indicates that this is a Network Supply; Code: GAL003; Local authority: Whakatāne District Council; Water authority: Penetito Land Trust and for compliance reporting not required. A Page 8 of 10 12

13 However, as Council is the de-facto operator of this supply, through the purchase of water from the trust bore, and delivers this water to customers (24 connected properties) via a piped network, Council acts as a Networked Supplier. As a drinking water supplier, Council has the duties, responsibilities and liabilities applicable to a drinking water supplier under the Health Act Penetito Compliance Basic information on current compliance for Penetito water source is: Penetito Compliance Comment System Risk - No disinfection. Shallow bore and mixing of horticultural chemicals on site. Water safety plan N/A Not required by DHB Catchment risk analysis N/A Not required by DHB Water Sampling Yes Bore = 1 per week Treated = 1 per month E.Coli compliance Yes Monitored and reported to DHB DHB compliance Yes Although reporting on this system is not required Council provides regular reports to DHB - sampling criteria met for a small water supply Penetito Options (in order of technical preference based on contamination risk reduction) 1. An immediate solution is to provide a microbiological contamination barrier via the installation of small, self-contained Calcium Chloride chlorination system, at an approximate capital cost of $40k. It is expected that the consumers will oppose chlorination, similarly to consumers in Murupara. Therefore, before implementing this option, community consultation should take place. This option would have: 1. Low ongoing maintenance whilst giving appropriate chlorine disinfection 2. Additional operational cost 3. Continued access and payment arrangement with the Penetito Land Trust 4. Continued renewals and replacement of existing on-site infrastructure assets. 2. The best long-term solution is the extension of the Otumahi (Paul Road bore) supply to this site. This would involve interconnecting the two networks by constructing a pipeline at an approximate cost of $600,000. This option would: 1. Integrate the two water supplies and utilise the recently constructed Otumahi Water Treatment Plant giving appropriate treatment and disinfection 2. Eliminate the ongoing need for access to the Penetito Land Trust bore and associated payments to the Trust 3. Eliminate ongoing renewal and replacement of existing on-site infrastructure assets 4. Require the decommissioning and removal and reuse, where possible, of existing on-site infrastructure assets 5. Have no additional operational and maintenance costs. 3. Do nothing. This option would have: 1. A status quo arrangement with no additional cost A Page 9 of 10 13

14 5.3 Ruatāhuna 2. Inferred risk of water contamination 3. An ongoing risk to Council s image if the do nothing option is adopted and a water contamination event occurs. Ruatāhuna Water Supply is an untreated water supply with a spring and reticulated network, located approximately a two-hour drive from Whakatāne at 355 Waikaremoana Road, Ruatāhuna. All aspects of the water supply scheme are controlled by the local Hinepukohurangi Trust. Drinking Water for New Zealand indicates that this is a Network Supply; Code: RUA008; Local authority: Whakatāne District Council; Water Authority: Hinepukohurangi Trust and for compliance reporting not required. Council owns a water take Resource Consent, but we have been recently advised that the system uses a different water source Ruatāhuna Compliance This is a water supply for a small community, with all facilities owned by the Trust. District Health Board (DHB) compliance is not required and no record of sampling or monitoring is available to Council. Anecdotally, this water scheme is in a poor state of repair and due to current development plans in the area, it needs to be upgraded. Changes to its management are also required. There is an ongoing dialogue with Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua as to the future of this water supply, with current indications that some form of co-operation between the Council and Te Uru Taumatua should be reached. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT the Water Safety Report Treatment of Water Supplies be received; and 2. THAT it be recommended to the Council to approve Murupara Water Supply Option 1 to install a full set of treatment contamination barriers (for both protozoa and bacteria) involving chlorination, UV treatment and backflow prevention; and 3. THAT it be recommended to Council to undertake community consultation on proposed options 1 and 2 for the Penetito Water Supply. Attached to this report: Appendix 1 Letter from Director General of Health dated December 2017 Appendix 2 - Letter from Chief Executive of BOPDHB dated 10 January 2018 Report Authorisation Report writer: Michael van Tilburg Manager Three Waters Planning and Asset Management Final Approval: Tomasz Krawczyk General Manager Infrastructure A Page 10 of 10 14

15 WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE - AGENDA TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY Appendix 1 - Letter from Director General of Health December 2017 Page 15

16 16

17 WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE - AGENDA TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY Appendix 2 - Letter from BOP District Health Board January 2018 Page 17

18 18