Maybe I’ve just become used to the chlorine. Although we do have one of those filter jugs on the bench. Either way, it doesn’t bother me.
Christchurch City Council, though, thinks very differently.
Last night, it put out a media release that - I have to say - would be one of the most fired-up statements I’ve ever seen come out from a council.
This is what the headline said: “Christchurch councillors outraged to hear chlorine forced into water supply”.
And then the statement went on to say that the council has been (quote) “led up the garden path” by the Government’s water regulator. Strong stuff aye?
The statement also says the mayor’s been in touch with the water regulator and has demanded that its chief executive front up at a public meeting. So let’s see what happens on that front.
So city councillors are going ape because they reckon the national water regulator led them to believe that getting an exemption from putting chlorine in the drinking water was achievable.
And, because of that, the council has spent time and money getting its infrastructure up-to-scratch so it can prove to the regulator that chlorine isn’t needed to keep the water safe to drink.
So that was the whole basis of the work. Get things up to scratch and get the exemption.
Little bit of background: The Water Services Act (which was passed in 2021), makes it mandatory for councils to put chlorine in the water - unless, unless they manage to get approval from the water authority for an exemption. And it’s the national water regulator that enforces the legislation.
You might recall that getting an exemption from the chlorine requirements was one of Lianne Dalziel’s major goals when she was heading towards the end of her term as mayor. So we can assume she’ll be outraged as well.
The current mayor is saying today that the goalposts have been changing all along and now they’ve changed again, to the point where he thinks there will never, ever be chlorine-free water in Christchurch. Never, ever.
And right now, council staff are out getting ready to stick it in the water in areas that aren’t already chlorinated.
My understanding is that, in itself, is going to cost the council close to a million bucks. That’s just to get the chlorine to where it isn’t at the moment.
Now just because I don’t really care whether there’s chlorine in the water or not - and, as I said earlier, I think there should be fluoride in the drinking water too. Just because chlorine doesn't bother me, I am with the council on one thing. And that’s this enforcement that’s going on.
I’d go as far, actually, to say that what the water regulator is doing is 3 Waters in sheep’s clothing. Because it’s all very well the council still owning the infrastructure - for now anyway. But what use is that when it’s being told by yet another centralised organisation what to do with its infrastructure? Especially, if the goal posts have kept changing.
And that’s where I think the Council should push back. Just like it did last year with the intensification rules that Labour and National started forcing on it.
You’ll remember city councillors saying “no thanks” over that last year. Or, as one councillor described it, they were “flipping the bird” to the Government.
Which eventually led to Wellington sending-in the mediator - who was actually the enforcer - sending him in to bang some heads together at the Council. And that’s exactly what Christchurch should be doing after being told to forget about an exemption from the chlorine rules.
I see the mayor is saying today that they’ll continue to fight and advocate for the people of Christchurch. Well, flipping the bird would be a good start, wouldn’t it?
Yes, we know the Government would just send in another one of its enforcers. But, surely, the Council should be going head-on over this if it really thinks it’s been hard done by. If it really thinks we’ve been hard done by.
Tell them where they can put their chlorine.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
And then the statement went on to say that the council has been (quote) “led up the garden path” by the Government’s water regulator. Strong stuff aye?
The statement also says the mayor’s been in touch with the water regulator and has demanded that its chief executive front up at a public meeting. So let’s see what happens on that front.
So city councillors are going ape because they reckon the national water regulator led them to believe that getting an exemption from putting chlorine in the drinking water was achievable.
And, because of that, the council has spent time and money getting its infrastructure up-to-scratch so it can prove to the regulator that chlorine isn’t needed to keep the water safe to drink.
So that was the whole basis of the work. Get things up to scratch and get the exemption.
Little bit of background: The Water Services Act (which was passed in 2021), makes it mandatory for councils to put chlorine in the water - unless, unless they manage to get approval from the water authority for an exemption. And it’s the national water regulator that enforces the legislation.
You might recall that getting an exemption from the chlorine requirements was one of Lianne Dalziel’s major goals when she was heading towards the end of her term as mayor. So we can assume she’ll be outraged as well.
The current mayor is saying today that the goalposts have been changing all along and now they’ve changed again, to the point where he thinks there will never, ever be chlorine-free water in Christchurch. Never, ever.
And right now, council staff are out getting ready to stick it in the water in areas that aren’t already chlorinated.
My understanding is that, in itself, is going to cost the council close to a million bucks. That’s just to get the chlorine to where it isn’t at the moment.
Now just because I don’t really care whether there’s chlorine in the water or not - and, as I said earlier, I think there should be fluoride in the drinking water too. Just because chlorine doesn't bother me, I am with the council on one thing. And that’s this enforcement that’s going on.
I’d go as far, actually, to say that what the water regulator is doing is 3 Waters in sheep’s clothing. Because it’s all very well the council still owning the infrastructure - for now anyway. But what use is that when it’s being told by yet another centralised organisation what to do with its infrastructure? Especially, if the goal posts have kept changing.
And that’s where I think the Council should push back. Just like it did last year with the intensification rules that Labour and National started forcing on it.
You’ll remember city councillors saying “no thanks” over that last year. Or, as one councillor described it, they were “flipping the bird” to the Government.
Which eventually led to Wellington sending-in the mediator - who was actually the enforcer - sending him in to bang some heads together at the Council. And that’s exactly what Christchurch should be doing after being told to forget about an exemption from the chlorine rules.
I see the mayor is saying today that they’ll continue to fight and advocate for the people of Christchurch. Well, flipping the bird would be a good start, wouldn’t it?
Yes, we know the Government would just send in another one of its enforcers. But, surely, the Council should be going head-on over this if it really thinks it’s been hard done by. If it really thinks we’ve been hard done by.
Tell them where they can put their chlorine.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
I prefer my water without industrial waste products (poisons) added to it thank you very much!
Under the proposed Three Waters setup, if it comes into existence, my understanding is that Maori tribal leaders will be able to make “statements” to the governing boards. Nobody seems to have indicated what a “statement” could possibly cover and/or whether statements are binding in any way. If a statement said Whiskey or Gin and Tonic instead of chlorine must be incorporated in the water supply would that happen?
Somewhat oblique to the point, but my worry with Cl and Fl is that application devolves to contractors and low skilled operatives. There seems ever present risk of overdose. This is adopted with Cl when contamination suspected. Cl is considered the main factor in corrosion of hot water cyls and butyl pipes; both an enormous expense for homeowners and insurance comapnies in recent times. Any Fl overdose is vastly more serious. Hopefully, without 3 Waters, all contractors will not be easy going maori.
“ I have no problem with chlorine in the water”. As a Christchurch resident, I’m appalled by that statement. We have access to the purest drinking water in the world and this radio fellow is quite prepared to surrender to this chemical intrusion. I would suggest that he’s on his own in my town.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.