Opinion: “As time passes, knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the August 2016 outbreak will fade and its immediate impact will be lost.” This statement comes from the 2017 report of the official investigation into the campylobacteriosis outbreak in Havelock North. The then-national government initiated the investigation after the outbreak sickened an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people, hospitalized 42 people and led to four deaths.
It was the largest water-borne outbreak of campylobacteriosis in the world. The Havelock North water supply pollution disaster has exposed the weaknesses in the policies and agencies that address our most basic needs.
Havelock North was no anomaly. While it was by far the largest outbreak, it was not the only outbreak caused by a contaminated drinking water supply in recent years. Before 2016, there were smaller outbreaks in Darfield and Cardrona. In addition, the research shows that an estimated more than 30,000 New Zealanders suffer from gastrointestinal illness every year as a result of contaminated drinking water.
We knew then that things had to change, but less than eight years later, as warned, the memories seem to be fading. The government is proposing to reverse much of the progress made in strengthening drinking water protections. The full impact of its rollback may be overlooked as the changes affect different policy areas. But all things considered, the weakening of legal protections for drinking water is serious.
Providing safe, good quality drinking water requires the implementation of multiple protective barriers; starting with the protection of the source (the body of water from which the water supply is drawn) and continuing with good infrastructure, adequate treatment and good monitoring. It was the failure of more than one barrier that led to the Havelock North outbreak. Robust implementation of the barriers requires policies that are coherent and interconnected. It also requires institutions with clear roles, adequate resources and accountability.
Following the outbreak, significant progress has been made in strengthening and clarifying agency responsibilities in our drinking water supply system.
A key change was the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which was rewritten to prioritize the protection of drinking water sources over commercial interests, through the Te Mana o te Wai decision-making framework. This was a major win for public health, as drinking water was ultimately given the necessary weight in legislation and planning. As the study had written, “in the absence of specific recognition, protection of drinking water sources could easily be overtaken by competing pressures.” In addition, the Resource Management Act was amended to strengthen the regional councils' responsibility for drinking water, and new national environmental standards for sources of human drinking water had been established for the same purpose.
However, the government plans to reverse these gains, including deprioritizing drinking water protection under the National Policy Statement, saying this will “rebalance” Te Mana o te Wai. This most likely means that commercial interests will win out over the protection of drinking water; as they have been doing for years, even if regional councils knew in advance that granting permission would contaminate people's drinking water. The research had identified a 'no responsibility mentality' around the protection of drinking water sources in regional councils, and highlighted the need for policy changes that made councils' responsibilities much more explicit.
In addition, the government has signaled its intention to rewrite the Resource Management Act to give priority to the “enjoyment of property rights” (the current goal of which is sustainable management, including “protecting the life-sustaining capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems”. They have also proposed the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, which 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 pressure on and pollution of source water (irrigation dams). For example). Projects approved under the bill are not required to prove that they will not impact source water.
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has reiterated the need for strict water quality standards, and drinking water standards are undoubtedly important. However, standards alone are not sufficient to achieve safe drinking water of good quality. Drinking water standards existed before the Havelock North outbreak.
The Havelock North outbreak has taught the country hard and important lessons about the serious consequences of contaminated drinking water, and through the research we have learned how we can strengthen the country's drinking water system. However, the government is unwisely and currently largely inexplicably dismantling the gains made in its aftermath.
Ministers responsible for these changes include Environment Minister Penny Simmonds, Resource Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay.
It is crucial that these ministers, and other policymakers, take stock of the range of proposed changes and ensure they do not pave the way for the next Havelock North-type disaster.
A longer version of this article appears at The public health expert briefing published by the Public Health Communication Center.