There are risks involved in changing the rules around drinking water standards, Geoff Cumming, of the NZ Herald, reports.
To explain why ratepayers in our rural backblocks face big bills to clean up tap water that looks and tastes just fine, the Ministry of Health points to the Canadian town of Walkerton, Ontario.
For decades, the good folk of this quiet backwater near the Great Lakes drew water from wells fed by an aquifer, blissfully unaware they were playing Russian roulette with their health.
But in May 2000, after heavy rain, half the people in the town of 5000 fell ill just by turning on the tap and drinking the water.
Sixty-five were hospitalised and seven died.
Thirty need kidney dialysis for the rest of their lives, caused by the E coli bacteria which contaminated the supply, courtesy of manure from surrounding cattle farms.
For six months, residents had to boil water treated with bleach before authorities declared the supply safe, but their trust was permanently dented.
The same could happen in this rain-drenched agricultural nation, where faecal contamination from farms filters into groundwater and streams.
The Ministry of Health has progressively turned the screws to ensure more rural water suppliers comply with national drinking water standards.
In big cities and most sizeable towns, there's confidence that what comes out of the tap won't harm us.
But with small rural settlements and private supplies - including country schools and camp grounds - the picture is murkier.
Environmental Science and Research's latest review of drinking water quality, for 2006-07, found only one in six schools with their own supply met the ministry's standards.
Of the 607 school supplies, 103 failed because of faecal contamination.
Of 700 local authority supplies, 102 recorded waste contamination.
The review says 16% of New Zealanders are still served by water - mostly from smaller rural schemes - that does not meet the New Zealand drinking water standards: "In most cases, part of the reason relates to contamination such as faecal material."
So is Rodney Hide, the Minister for Regulatory Reform, playing Russian roulette with his planned moratorium on new requirements for suppliers to comply with the ministry's standards for drinking water?
Hide, who is also Local Government Minister, has gone in to bat for councils claiming they face huge bills to achieve compliance.
"Over-the-top regulations imposed by the previous Government have put great financial stress on rural communities who were previously happy with their water supply," he said in announcing a review of "red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy".
Rural councils are delighted by Hide's tilting at bureaucratic windmills.
They're backing their man with frightening estimates of how much they're faced with spending to satisfy the ministry, and how much rates may rise.
Townies who think their heavily-treated supplies leave them immune to this wrangle should think again.
Many have baches or camp at coastal settlements where supplies are deemed risky; but higher treatment or new supply sources could send bach-owners' rates through the roof.
Only some of the at-risk supplies are council-controlled.
Many private reticulated supplies in villages and some new subdivisions potentially face huge bills.
It's the classic public health dilemma: weighing up the costs and benefits of minimising a risk against the likelihood of a mass outbreak.
New Zealand has its share of waterborne illness scares.
In July 2006, a norovirus outbreak at Cardrona skifield laid 218 staff and visitors low when the drinking supply was contaminated by septic tank and effluent run-off.
Schools and school camps have also had incidents.
The largest outbreak, when about 3500 people in Queenstown were struck ill with gastrointestinal symptoms, was 25 years ago, but small outbreaks occur almost annually.
A study released last month by Associate Prof Michael Baker of Otago University found our rates of giardia and cryptosporidium are significantly higher than those in Australia, Britain, the United States and Germany.
These gut infections cost the country hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare and lost work time, says Prof Baker.
A 2007 report by ESR scientist Andrew Ball estimates between 18,000 and 34,000 cases of gastrointestinal disease occur annually from drinking water.
The common waterborne bugs - E. Coli, cryptosporidium, giardia and campylobacter - can hospitalise, or kill.
But in many cases people get over them after a few days off work and without going to the doctor.
Mr Ball found "ample evidence" of waterborne disease outbreaks in New Zealand, and a "significant risk" of contracting gastro-illnesses from untreated or inadequately treated water.
What has suppliers in a lather is the timetable for meeting requirements under the 2007 Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act which requires suppliers to "take all practicable steps" to comply with drinking water standards that were previously voluntary.
Large and new drinking-water suppliers were given a deadline of July 1, this year; medium suppliers have until July 1 next year and small suppliers until July 1, 2012.
For rural agricultural and neighbourhood suppliers, the deadline is four years away.
Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule says the Government made available about $140 million to help suppliers achieve compliance, through treatment and other measures.
But councils estimate about $700 million is needed, most of it in small rural councils with low rating bases.
"Everyone wants improved standards but when legislation comes in this sort of timeframe it forces compliance on people and affects other priorities."
Yule says councils want more time to achieve compliance and a better cost-benefit analysis to justify the expenditure.
"The science is not robust enough."
Thames-Coromandel Mayor Philippa Barriball says the peninsula has few problem areas despite a large number of treatment plants.
But the twin settlements of Pauanui and Tairua, separated by a harbour, both need water supply upgrades which could cost up to $20 million.
"We won't be able to bring both up to standard; we will have to look at one plant but we don't yet know where the water will come from.
"We're talking about 3700 rateable properties that we are already pinging $1000 from for wastewater upgrades.
"If we need an extra $10,000 from them for drinking water ..."
She says a small supply servicing the Matatoki dairy farming area, south of Thames, also needs upgrading.
"We are required to upgrade to this wonderful status largely for the benefit of 70 to 80 herds of dairy cows and to protect about 100 people who've been drinking this water for generations."
She says the ministry is asking for too much, too soon and more flexibility is needed to allow for communities with "unique circumstances".
Rural councils throughout the country are singing a similar tune.
They say supplies can be failed for technical breaches - such as frequency of sampling or fencing-off the supply source at the correct distance - rather than the health of the water.
With Mr Hide responding to their pleas - and the popularity of cutting red tape - risks of non-compliance could be lost sight of.
And Ministry of Health officials point out that the new regulations are nowhere near as rigid as portrayed.
Principal public health engineer Paul Prendergast says councils can satisfy the new requirements simply by having an approved risk management plan in place.
"[Suppliers] can go outside the timelines as long as we believe they are doing all that's reasonably practicable to meet the standard."
Under the Act, smaller councils have less onerous monitoring requirements.
Cost and affordability will be taken into account in determining whether "all practicable steps" have been taken.
The ministry provides technical advice and its capital assistance programme is available to councils.
Mr Prendergast says some suppliers face costly upgrades not just because of the new regulations, but because of a legacy of neglect of their treatment plants and reticulation systems.
The Clutha District Council, which challenged the changes at the select committee stage, was found to have significantly over-estimated the costs it faced.
Mr Prendergast invites councils to discuss their circumstances with local assessors.
"The legislation provides for them to set up risk-management programmes ... to take reasonable steps to minimise their risks - and they can go outside the timeline."
But he stresses that New Zealand does have high rates of faecal diseases including giardia, cryptosporidium and campylobacter, and there is an association with small community supplies.
"Why we haven't had a major outbreak, we just don't know.
"Maybe we are lucky ..."
- Geoff Cumming.
