The decision came after Waitaki District Council chief executive Alex Parmley asked councillors to indemnify him and his staff if they chose to act against Taumata Arowai’s preferred solutions.
Eight of Waitaki’s water supplies do not meet the regulations for protozoa barriers, which filter out parasites such as cryptosporidium.
Because of that, an indefinite boil water notice has been in place for Awamoko, Kauru Hill, Tokarahi, Windsor, Stoneburn and Awahokomo since October. Ohau has been on notice since 2014 and Bushy Creek since 2015, as they were not treated at all.
Upgrading most of these is set to cost the council $5.3m, which was why many councillors were interested in exploring alternative solutions that would cost less and still meet the standards.
The only supply an alternative solution has been sought for is Awahokomo, which may be privatised or possibly deregistered as a public supply.
Taumata Arowai became the regulator of drinking water in 2021. Last year it told councils they needed a funded plan to be completed by the end of June this year and for surface water barriers to be operating by the end of the year.
The agency has the right to use enforcement action against those not complying with its requirements.
Last Tuesday councillors voted to commit money to installing the barriers early, instead of being part of the annual plan process, to help ensure the deadline was met.
Despite agreeing to it, they were not happy about the decision.
Cr Jim Thomson said he did not believe anybody had a problem with the council being required to supply safe drinking water, but not being able to find solutions outside the model proposed by Taumata Arowai was concerning.
Accepting it immediately meant excluding the possibility of a more effective solution for the council and the ratepayer.
Cr John McCone said it went "completely against everything that rural water and smaller schemes do".
The council did need to meet the requirements, but it needed to do it in the most affordable manner possible.
Cr Guy Percival voted against the motion.
"It just seems crazy to me that we’ve got to treat water that’s going, in some cases up to 90%, to stock."
Other questions were asked, such as if there was time to sit down with Taumata Arowai and go through solutions for each supply.
Mr Parmley said Taumata Arowai was "very clear" about taking enforcement action if expectations were not met.
Making a deliberate decision not to progress with a plan that met the standards exposed the council legally.
"If we’ve not met the water standards, and we’ve deliberately not agreed to meet the water standards, we haven’t got a leg to stand on.
"I’d ask you indemnify me and my staff from any potential prosecution that may arise from your decision not to upgrade these water services."
Finance, corporate development and acting assets group manager Paul Hope said what had been proposed to councillors was already the bare minimum to satisfy Taumata Arowai.
"I’m personally not too interested in being the one that Taumata Arowai makes an example of. We just have to get on with a solution that will meet the requirement."
Cr Jim Hopkins was the one who moved the motion, but was direct about how he felt about it.
"Our staff are being bullied by a government agency that is using a big stick and threatening."
Hearing Mr Parmley’s request to be indemnified made him realise how serious the situation was.
Mayor Gary Kircher "reluctantly" supported the motion.
The council needed to schedule a meeting with Taumata Arowai so councillors could "vent some of our frustrations".
A council spokesman was confident the barriers would be operational by the Taumata Arowai deadline.
