In 2016, we posed the question – ‘Is our Water Supply Governance Broken?’. We talked about waterborne incidents being a repeating occurrence and the need to have good evidence-based governance in place to assure good outcomes for our communities and ratepayers.
So what have we learnt since then? Have waterborne incidents and outbreaks stopped happening? Has water governance improved?
The Issue
Many jurisdictions have a source to endpoint, risk-based framework in place for managing both water quality, water quantity, maintenance, operation and ownership of assets. In Australia, we have the Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality within the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Various state legislation also exists, which requires the development and implementation of a ‘risk management plan’ for managing product quality. For water quantity, again there are jurisdictional requirements for instance, the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) is in force in the state of New South Wales with wider legislation (for cross-border water resources) included in instruments such as the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the ‘Basin Plan’ for Murray-Darling River Basin resources.
In New Zealand, it is a similar picture. The Resource Management Act 1991 was designed to promote the sustainable management of resources including water and its catchments. Regional and district plans are developed under that legislation and are oversighted by various bodies. A resource consent is required to access water. The Health Act 1956 (as amended by the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007) requires a ‘risk management plan’ (Water Safety Plan) for water suppliers and the Drinking-Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008) are issued under that legislation.
We have water users and suppliers in place, we have frameworks in place, we have regulators for water supply catchments, water quality and water quantity in place – so why do failures keep happening?
Why should we care?
Waterborne and water resource incidents impose huge costs on our communities and ratepayers – often on those communities that can least afford the impost.
Since the Flint water crisis started unfolding in 2014, there has been an ongoing litany of tangible cost impacts as well as a suite of yet to be monetised externalities. Water plant officials, emergency managers and state officials have been charged with various offences associated with the incident, including involuntary manslaughter in connection with an associated Legionnaires’ outbreak (in which at least 12 people died). In March 2017, a judge approved a settlement of US$97 million to replace pipework and the USEPA awarded US$100 million for water infrastructure upgrades. There are also continuing effects for future generations. Research has pointed to a decrease in pregnancies, a higher number of fetal deaths and babies being born at least 150 grams lighter, in those exposed to the alternative river water source.
Putting a cost on the social impacts is almost impossible – especially when the effects span lifetimes, even generations:
Some, however, have estimated that social costs from the Flint lead poisoning incident may amount to approximately US$400 million and note that US$58 million has already been spent on medical care and water provisions by the state.
The next wave
While Flint was, and continues to unfold, we also had resource and quality incidents happening in our own backyard. In August 2016, a waterborne outbreak occurred in the town of Havelock North, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. Over a third of the population contracted campylobacteriosis – a debilitating gastrointestinal disease. It is also possible that the outbreak resulted in a number of deaths. The direct costs to the community were estimated to be around NZ$21 million with costs to local government (Hastings District Council and Hawkes Bay Regional Council) in the vicinity of NZ$4.1 million. However, it is likely that the costs were much more than this and may never be fully quantified, including ripple impacts on tourism and New Zealand’s reputation as a ‘clean, green’ destination. In its findings, the Inquiry charged with reviewing the circumstances for the outbreak, found the current drinking water regime fragmented, with many different agencies and persons being responsible for many different aspects (from source to end user). Consequently, there was opportunity for governance to fail. The adequacy at all levels of governance was found wanting.
In 2017, a current affairs program investigated potential issues associated with water take from the Murray-Darling Basin Rivers’ system within the state of New South Wales – alleging compliance issues at the user and regulator levels. An inquiry was subsequently initiated and undertaken by an independent, Ken Matthews. The principal finding from the inquiry was that water-related compliance and enforcement arrangements in NSW had been ineffectual and required significant and urgent improvement, specifically:
- The overall standard of NSW compliance and enforcement work has been poor.
- Arrangements for metering, monitoring and measurement of water extractions, especially in the Barwon–Darling river system, are not at the standard required for sound water management and expected by the community.
- Certain individual cases of alleged non-compliance have remained unresolved for far too long.
- There is little transparency to members of the public of water regulation arrangements in NSW, including the compliance and enforcement arrangements which should underpin public confidence.
A package of administrative and operational reforms was recommended. In particular, the following was noted:
“…..flagship transparency initiatives include some historic changes to better reflect the fact that water is a community-owned resource and members of the public have the right to satisfy themselves that it is being used in compliance with the law.”
What can we learn?
For water resource management, Ken Matthews made the following observations, on the behaviour of those in public office:
“My interviews with members of staff involved in water management suggested a culture of tolerance for expedient work practices in the interests of “outcomes”, but at the expense of due and proper process. I saw examples of possible failures to confront unethical behaviour. I heard public servants clearly deficient in their understanding of the Westminster conventions. I observed a group culture diverging from the best traditions of Australian public administration.
To provide the necessary focus on ethics and public service professionalism I would encourage you to consider a new program of staff leadership training, mentoring, and, importantly, staff selections that take account of the ethical example officers set to others.”
For water quality management, the Havelock North Inquiry members had many observations including:
“Water suppliers should be required by the Director-General to review their WSPs [Water Safety Plans] to ensure that:
(a) leadership, governance and management understand the relevant drinking water risks and have appropriately addressed the management of those risks in their strategic decision making, long term planning, audit and resource allocation processes, and delegations;
(b) operational staff understand the critical control points and other processes they are required to follow, the matters they are required to monitor and escalate as appropriate, and that the critical control points and other processes are in place and are being implemented; and that
DWAs [Drinking Water Assessors] should action any failures to implement a WSP promptly and effectively with, where appropriate, compliance orders and/or other enforcement action.”
Good governance, good organisational culture and respect for our resources – they cannot be separated. Our resources and communities deserve the right people at the right level to do the right job, at the right place, at the right time.
Bio:
Annette is a highly experienced certified auditor and award-winning risk manager in the water, environment, policy and mining fields. She has helped utilities implement water safety and risk management plans both in Australia and overseas. She has a multitude of journal, book chapter, books, technical papers, reports and other publications in several fields including bioremediation, biodiversity, microbial ecology, water utility due diligence and risk management. Annette is in demand as a conference and workshop presenter, for auditing of statutory and certified risk management plans, for developing utility risk management plans, ERM consultation and development and as a facilitator for board workshops.
M: 0411 049 544
A: PO Box 268 Killara NSW 2071 Australia
E: annette@riskedge.com.au
W: riskedge.com.au
Twitter: @AnnetteDavison
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/annettedavison
Skype: annettedavison