Accountability and drinking-water in rural New Zealand

Dr. Jonathan Barrett and Gwyn Narraway School of Business Open Polytechnic Phone: +64 (4) 913 5901 Fax +64 (4) 913 7843 Private Bag 31914, Lower Hutt 5011 New Zealand

2

Accountability and drinking-water in rural New Zealand

1. Introduction

Most New Zealanders enjoy access to high quality drinking-water, but residents of

small, rural towns commonly do not have access to drinking-water that meets the

bacterial standards recommended by the Ministry of Health. Under the Local

Government Act 2002 (the Act), local councils are responsible for providing water

services to their communities. The Act also prescribes extensive consultation and

reporting obligations to promote councils’ accountability to their communities. This

paper questions how accountable certain councils are in practice for the quality of the

drinking-water they supply. Using information made available to the public through

their websites, analysis is conducted of the reporting performance of seven councils,

whose drinking-water has failed to meet national standards. The health risks

community members face from bacterially contaminated water is a critical

governance issue; equally important is the quality of reporting which allows councils

to be held accountable for their water supplies.

2. Drinking-water: context and expectations

Most New Zealanders enjoy access to a reticulated drinking-water supply that

complies with national standards for bacterial contamination. Thus, according to the

Ministry of Health (MOH) (2009a, p. 2), 80 percent of the population is served by

compliant reticulated water supplies, 12 percent by non-compliant reticulated

supplies, and eight percent of the population is self-supplied. Non-compliant water

supplies generally serve rural towns with populations less than 5,000. Large outbreaks

3

of gastro-intestinal disease have occurred in New Zealand,1 notably one affecting

3,500 people in the popular tourist destination Queenstown in 1984. However,

probably reflecting the larger proportion of water supplies serving small communities

in New Zealand compared to most other developed countries, the number of cases

involved in most outbreaks is small, averaging nine cases per outbreak in 2001-05,

and is smaller than other countries for which data are available. Nevertheless, there is

sufficient evidence of waterborne disease outbreaks in New Zealand to indicate a

significant risk of contracting gastro-intestinal disease from drinking-water that is

untreated or inadequately treated (Ball, 2006, p. iii).

With annual revenues approaching $10 billion, dairy farming is New

Zealand’s top foreign exchange earner, but, in rural areas, it is the major contributor

to water contamination. Indeed, as a consequence of heavy fertilising, increasingly

intensive farming and poor environmental management, rural water supplies in New

Zealand are commonly polluted by effluent. In terms of the Dairy and Clean Streams

Accord (2003), shareholders in Fonterra (New Zealand’s predominant dairy co-

operative) are expected to prevent effluent and fertiliser reaching waterways and

lakes. Despite the obvious costs incurred, many farmers are seeking ways to comply

by, for example, planting vegetation on riverbanks, and building bridges and culverts

to keep stock out of rivers and streams. However, compliance is inconsistent and,

particularly among tourist operators, it is believed that dairy farmers generally have a

short-term perception of the environment (Churchouse, 2009). Indeed, the largest

privately owned group of dairy farms has been prosecuted five times by two regional

councils for effluent related offences, and has been fined more than $100,000 over an

eight-year period (Neems, 2009). Generally, “[e]utrophication or nutrient build up in

1 The disease organisms are mainly bacterial (Campylobacteria, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia and toxigenic E. coli), protozoal (Cryptosporidia and Giardia) or viral (enterovirus or norovirus).

4

waterways and lakes is a major issue … for many farm-fringe watercourses

throughout New Zealand” (Churchouse, 2009). As Houlbrooke (2008, p. 1) observes,

“poorly performing farm dairy effluent (FDE) systems can have large deleterious

effects on water quality, particularly when direct losses of FDE with high

concentrations of contaminants (phosphorus, nitrogen and faecal microbes) discharge,

drain or run-off directly to surface water bodies”. In addition to the risks posed by

effluent contaminations, there is relatively poor compliance with national drinking-

water standards by suppliers of water to small communities compared to that of the

larger community suppliers (Ball, 2006, p. iii).

3. Drinking-water standards in New Zealand

The Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action instituted by

the Labour-led government (1999-2008) included a Sustainable Water Programme of

Action, which aimed to ensure a plentiful supply of clean water to all New Zealanders

(MFE, 2009). Although water supply is the responsibility of territorial local

authorities (‘councils’), a key element of the programme was to “[i]mprove the

management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality through increased

national direction” (MFE, 2006). In sum, national standards would be set but would

need to be implemented and paid for locally, whatever the preferences of local

communities might be. Currently, being in a period of transition, water-suppliers may

opt whether to comply with the 2000 or more demanding 2005 Drinking-Water

Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ). Compliance is measured against the standard

chosen (MOH, 2009a, p. 1).

5

This water strategy was legislatively translated into a new ‘Part 2A Drinking

Water’ of the Health Act, introduced by the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act

2007, whose purpose is “to protect the health and safety of people and communities

by promoting adequate supplies of safe and wholesome drinking water from all

drinking-water supplies” (s69A Health Act 1956). The new part imposes onerous

duties on water suppliers, including, as far is practicable, full compliance with

DWSNZ (2005). Taking all practicable steps requires water suppliers to “understand

the risks with their supply and show they have taken all the steps they can to plan to

avoid or minimise these risks. If it is too expensive, technically impossible or will

result in too little [benefit] as against the cost, then a supplier will be permitted to

provide water that does not meet the standards, provided it has demonstrated that it

can show it really has taken all practicable steps” (MOH, 2009b).

Compliance with Part 2A Health Act is staggered depending on the size of the

community, with the first group (communities larger than 10,000 people) originally

being required to have compliance plans in place by 1 July 2009. However, the

National-led government elected in 2008 has postponed compliance due to concerns

about the impact of compliance on rates and water charges, with smaller communities

now having until 2016 to comply. Without government assistance, smaller and

typically poorer rural communities may face politically implausible rates increases.

This deferral is expected to “provide additional time for councils to consult with their

communities on costs and proposals as part of their Long Term Council Community

Plans” (Hide and Ryall, 2009). The government has also signaled that standards

themselves may be relaxed if they prove too costly, thereby indicating that local

communities may be granted greater say over the quality of their water supplies.

6

A relaxation of drinking-water standards may be attractive to some rural

communities. One rural council estimates that the capital cost for full DWSNZ 2005

compliance would be on average $1,700 per capita of community members (Stocker,

2009, p. 52), whereas annual per capita rates income for the councils surveyed ranges

from $666 to $1,048.2 Beyond the cost implications, rural areas may opt for minimal

treatment since the bulk of water is used for commercial agricultural purposes, and

drinking water can often become contaminated after it leaves the council-controlled

reticulation systems, thereby requiring filtration at the point of the household’s taps

(Stocker, 2009, p. 53).

4. Accountability framework

A council must, from time to time, use its best endeavours to make a full and balanced

assessment of the supply of water to communities within its district (ss125(1)(a) and

129(3) the Act).3 Generally, a council is required to improve, promote, and protect

public health within its district, and to provide the Medical Officer of Health with

whatever reports on drinking water he or she may request (s23(f) Health Act 1956).

Along with consultation with the local Medical Officer of Health (s127(1) the Act),

these and other specific public health duties must be taken into account in any

assessment. Certain information is prescribed in making an assessment (s126 the Act),

but it is the council’s prerogative to decide appropriate use of information having

regard to the significance of the information; the costs of, and difficulty in, obtaining

2 Rating constitutes the principal source of local authority revenue in New Zealand. According to Bush (2003, p. 164), in 2001 an average of 57 percent of local authority revenue was contributed by rates (excluding user charges). 3 Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010 proposes, among other changes, the repeal of ss 126-129 the Act. This paper reflects the law at the time of writing.

7

the information; the authority’s resources; and public health considerations (s 129(1)

the Act). An assessment must indicate the affect of any informational constraints

(s 129(2) the Act).

4.1 Content of an assessment (s126 the Act)

The assessment must say how drinking water is obtained and whether the water is

potable (suitable for use by humans as drinking water) and the extent to which the

council provides this service. The quality and adequacy of supply of drinking water

available must be assessed. Statements must be made regarding current and estimated

future demand for water services, of any issues relating to the quality and adequacy of

supply of drinking water for the community. A further statement must be made

regarding the options available to meet current and future demand and assessment of

the suitability of each option for the district and for each community within it. When

assessing current and future demand for water services and options to meet that

demand, a council must consider the full range of options and their environmental and

public health impacts, and the full range of technologies available (s127(2) the Act).

A statement must be made of the council’s intended role in meeting current and future

demand, including proposals for any new or replacement infrastructure.

Numerous other statutes and regulations apply to water provision, some of

which impose duties on councils. Furthermore, councils also have significant

responsibilities under the Building Act 2004 for ensuring the sanitariness of buildings.

A building is deemed insanitary if it does not have a supply of potable water adequate

for the intended use (s123(c) Building Act). Investigation of duties additional to those

prescribed in the Act lie beyond the scope of this paper.

8

4.2 Communicating assessments

Councils have extensive consultation and reporting duties under the Act. An

assessment of water services may be included in a council’s triennially reviewed, ten

year long term council community plan (LTCCP), or otherwise adopted using a

special consultative procedure (s125(3) the Act).

Council planning must “extend opportunities for participation by the public in

decision-making processes relating to the costs and funding of activities to be

undertaken by the [council]” (s95(5)(e) the Act). Every financial year, a council must

produce an annual report, which includes comparisons of intended and actual

activities (s98 the Act). A fair summary of the annual report must also be produced,

which should be readily understood by lay readers (Controller and Auditor-General,

2005). Relevant information must be prepared in accordance with generally accepted

accounting practice (GAAP), when appropriate financial reporting standards have

been established (s111 the Act). Compliance with GAAP in New Zealand is primarily

indicated by adherence to domestic financial reporting standards and equivalents to

international financial reporting standards. Under the current conceptual framework,

GAAP-compliant information must be “understandable to financial statement users

who have a reasonable knowledge of business, economic activities and accounting

and a willingness to study the information with reasonable diligence” (FASAC,

2005). New Zealand GAAP includes additional requirements for public benefit

entities, such as local authorities (Warren, 2006). Planned legislation will require

councils to communicate information more effectively to community members (Hide,

2009).

In sum, the Act requires councils to describe their proposed activities and the

desired outcomes for their communities after consultation with them. Councils must

9

demonstrate integrated decision-making and co-ordination of the resources to provide

a basis for accountability to the community. Stewardship needs to be demonstrated in

terms of the present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well-

being of communities (s14 the Act). A council’s LTCCP must include an auditor’s

report on the extent to which the council has complied with the relevant provisions of

the Act, the quality of the information and assumptions used, and “the extent to which

the forecast information and performance measures provide an appropriate framework

for the meaningful assessment of the actual levels of service provision” (s94(1) the

Act).

The principles underpinning local governance may be expressed in accounting

terms as ‘concepts’. These principles/concepts include accountability (including

identification of financial and non-financial objectives and targets and comparing

them with actual achievements), fair presentation, stewardship of resources,

judgement of benefit over cost, measurement and qualitative characteristics that

include understandability, relevance, materiality and reliability (NZICA, 2005). Thus,

when a council has engaged in a consultation process, presented a draft LTCCP to its

community, made adjustments and acted on the agreed plan, it is behaving in an

accountable manner. Prudent stewardship is maintained because the council has used

community resources as prescribed or agreed and, ideally, has achieved the desired

outcome.

In accounting terms, accountability is discharged when a council reports to its

community (and central government) in its annual report (s98 the Act). In the annual

report, the stewardship of the council is described in financial and non-financial

terms. In a statement of service performance, actions (outputs) can be reported in

measured terms by comparing how much was done with what was planned and

10

explain the variance (NZICA, 2007, paras 138.1 - 10). A statement of service

performance gives an entity the opportunity to include non-financial and

supplementary information “which is additional to the information in financial

statements” (NZICA, 2005, para. 7.1).

It may be reasonably assumed that a community expects its council, to the

extent that it is practicable, to plan for the supply of water to be the required standard

and maintain or replace assets in a timely fashion to guarantee that water supply. The

information given to the community should be relevant, reliable, assured, and true and

fair. Efforts should be made to ensure that the benefits of producing the report

outweigh the costs, for instance by including the information with the annual report

and making the report available on the web and making it readily accessible to all

interested parties.

5. Survey

The councils surveyed were selected because they were identified by MOH (2009a) as

demonstrating repeated poor practice with regard to E. coli management and were

urged to change their practices. MOH (2009a, p. 46) observed “failure to remedy the

cause of a transgression subjects the population to prolonged exposure to faecally

contaminated drinking-water and imposes an unacceptable risk of waterborne disease

on the community”. The Ministry for the Environment also uses E. coli contamination

as a core indicator for both river and groundwater quality. Further, E. coli is probably

the best-known bacterial cause of gastro-intestinal disease, and may be recognised as

harmful by most members of a council’s community. Given these plausible health

risks, the economic pressures on councils and the possible relaxation of drinking-

11

water standards under the National-led government, the way in which councils ensure

they remain accountable to their communities, through fair and honest reporting is

critical. The extent to which those councils, which have already been identified as

exposing their communities to waterborne health risks, hold themselves accountable

is the focus of the following analysis. (Because of the sensitivity of the subject matter,

the councils are not identified in this paper. The authors hold copies of all documents

anonymously cited.)

Surveyed councils: basic information

Council Pop. (2006) Area (km2) Rates revenue

($ million)

Rates revenue

per capita

($)

A

6,921 22 5.9 852

B

17,634 4,361 14.8 839

C

8,889 2,339 7.0 787

D

9,702 8,574 9.0 928

E

8,403 11,880 5.6 666

F

10,476 8,660 10.5 1,002

G

20,223 7,214 21.2 1,048

Source: http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_URL/Councils-A-Z-Index

12

6. Findings

6.1 Compliance with drinking-water standards

A common Ministry of Health conclusion related to councils’ need “to take

appropriate corrective action following all E. coli transgressions. It is suggested that

these councils be reminded of the public health significance of faecally-contaminated

drinking-water” (MOH, 2009a, p. 172). However, the Ministry of Health observed of

district B: “None of the zones achieved protozoal compliance … This needs to be

addressed as a matter of urgency” (MOH, 2009a, p. 166). The failings of Council C’s

water supply quality also required urgent action (MOH, 2009a, p. 120). In the light of

these historical problems, despite remedial initiatives, it seems that Council C’s

opinion that current treatment and testing meet DWSNZ 2005 (LTCCP, 2009, p. 71)

may be misplaced.

While all of the councils surveyed were ‘persistent offenders’ from a Ministry

of Health perspective in relation to bacterial infection of their water supplies, MOH

(2009a) noted that improvements had been made, for example, by installing

ultraviolet (UV) filtration systems. Nevertheless, it is plausible that councils do not

know the extent of bacterial infection of their water supplies. For example, 45 of 47

council G’s drinking-water schemes have not been graded, and the two that were

graded were at an unsatisfactory level (LTCCP 2009, p. 124).

The presence of heavy metals, notably lead, in rural water supplies is a major

concern for MOH, nevertheless councils generally appear to be unwilling to monitor

for their presence. This may be an issue of wilful ignorance, even though, as council F

recognised, penalties for failing to comply with drinking water standards attract

substantial penalties (Annual Report, 2008-2009, p. 154). Once a council have tested

to show that the presence of toxic metals arises from “plumbosolvency”, no further

13

monitoring is needed “provided the necessary public warnings to flush taps before

drawing water for consumption are given” (MOH, 2009a, p. 146).

The water supply to one of Council C’s townships has a manganese problem,

which, although within the permitted limits, has been the subject of public concern. In

that township it is proposed to install UV treatment to the bore supply. The council

noted: “It is likely that the negativity will remain until proposed works are completed

over the next few years” (LTCCP, 2009, p. 70). Without public awareness of such

potential toxicity, councils do not appear willing to communicate the issue to their

residents. A failure to act transparently hinders accountability and carries significant

political risks.

6.2 Communication with residents

Generally, councils are adept at providing useful information to their residents.

Council E’s communication was particularly clear, using diagrams and narrative to

good effect, and explaining the financial implications of regulation (LTCCP, 2009).

Several of the councils commissioned NRB Communitrak surveys,4 although,

unusually, council D used local year 12 students to conduct its residents’ satisfaction

survey. Council C did not conduct a residents’ satisfaction survey but noted that an

NRB survey is due in 2011. Furthermore, this council “encourages on-going feedback

on satisfaction levels from the Community through the use of Fix-a-grams sent with

the rates demands”. A web-based survey such as this cannot provide a feel for the

nuances of consultation, particularly in small communities. Different councils tend to

adopt different ways of engaging in discourse with their communities (see, Barrett

and Scott, 2008), nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect documents for download 4 Most councils in New Zealand conduct resident satisfaction surveys at least every three years, commonly using the proprietary Communitrak system developed by National Research Bureau Ltd (NRB).

14

from a council website to be of a reasonable size. Not all rural communities are well

served with broadband access. The main body of Council C’s LTCCP was provided in

an 18.6 MB document. At a modem speed of 56 kbps, it would take almost an hour to

download. This could raise significant communications issues for dial-up

accountholders and may have cost issues for broadband accountholders. Further, the

demonstration of stewardship and accountability may be compromised. Council E

decided to make an electronic document the principal source of information about the

LTCCP in order to save the costs of printing a large number of hardcopies and to be

more environmentally friendly. This document would take nine minutes to download

at 56 kbps. Electronic versions of LTCCPs were typically around five megabytes in

size.

Council B is distinguished from the other councils surveyed inasmuch as it

failed to obtain an unqualified audit certificate from the Auditor-General. In the

auditor’s opinion, the LTCCP did not “provide a reasonable basis for long-term

integrated decision-making by the Council and for participation in decision-making

by the public and subsequent accountability to the community about the activities of

the Council. The Council does not have adequate information to support the forecast

expenditure and levels of service for water and waste infrastructure.” In particular,

“There is inadequate underlying information to support the forecast expenditure

included in the LTCCP in relation to Water Supplies, Sewerage, Solid Waste and

Stormwater (water and waste infrastructure) activities. In some instances, the forecast

information is inconsistent with the underlying information” (LTCCP, 2009, p. 28).

Council B was not alone in providing inadequate information. Council E, for

example, offered solutions to its water supply problems, including the construction of

15

a reservoir, but residents would need significantly more information before they could

form opinions about the different options.

Council A’s website advises that “water is untreated, although it is corrected

for pH”. However, the LTCCP states: “The sources and treatment plant were

improved in 2007 by installing Ultraviolet sterilisation for control of protozoa”.

Furthermore, while the council considers that the “current treatment and testing” meet

the exacting standards of DWSNZ 2005, it concedes: “The sources and treatment

plant could be improved by a range of other measures including chlorinating the

supply” (LTCCP, 2009, p. 57). If the water supply is already complaint, it is not

obvious how or why it should be improved. Council A also identifies quality of water

supply as a strategic issue. “The principal issue affecting Council’s supply of potable

water is biological cleanliness of the water. The supply is not considered a “secure”

supply as defined by the DWSNZ 2005.” The lack of security of supply “is due to

historical detection of faecal coliforms in the source water and inability to prove that

the water has been underground for more than 12 months or is not directly affected by

surface or climate influences in the environment” (LTCCP 2009, p. 71). It is

submitted that a resident would face difficulties in assessing the actual quality of the

water supply from the information given by council A.

6.3 Residents’ attitudes

The circumstances of council A provide the most vivid example of an apparent

difference between prescribed national standards and local expectations. In its 2006-

2007 survey, the Ministry of Health found that council A’s water supplies failed to

comply “with either the bacteriological or the protozoal requirements” and because of

the presence of E. coli needed to “implement immediate corrective action” to prevent

16

consumers exposure to “continued risk of waterborne disease” (MOH, 2009a).

However, residents expressed a 96 percent satisfaction rate with their water supplies

(NRB Communitrak survey). Indeed, the district’s spring water has been voted the

best tasting water in New Zealand (Council A’s website).

Residents in some areas may have become inured to low quality water. In the

most extreme case, some community members in district D claimed to have

developed immunity to any bacteria that may exist in their untreated water that they

had drunk for years (LTCCP, 2006). Drinking-water in one township in district F was

reported to be often poor, with residents advised to boil all water used for drinking or

food preparation. One well “shows signs of bacterial contamination whenever the

river runs dirty, particularly after heavy rain in the upper catchment” (LTCCP, 2009,

p. 51). This indicates a high degree of forbearance of low quality drinking-water

among certain rural populations. However, people living in one of council D’s wards

identified clean water and good water systems as the most important community

outcomes (Ibid). It seems that attitudes and expectations may depend on the degree of

quasi-urban development in a particular township. How different groups with

different interests interpret available information may also be significant.

6.4 Plausibility of goals

Certain of the targets set by the councils for themselves appear implausible. Council B

(which failed to earn an unqualified audit certificate) committed itself to full DWSNZ

2005 compliance by 2014, but did not explain how this ambitious goal would be

achieved. Generally, it seems, Council B may have been setting itself improbable

goals. For example, the council achieved a 44 percent satisfaction rate in February

2008 for its water supply but had a target rate of 85 percent by 2014 (Annual Report

17

2008-2009, p. 94). The New Zealand average satisfaction rate for water supply is

around 80 percent, whereas the NRB Rural Peer Group average is around 60 percent.

It seems unrealistic that the council should be able to boost its low approval rating so

as to significantly exceed its peer average. Similarly, council D’s key performance

indicators target for community expectations for provision of an adequate quality of

water was “Meet Community Expectations by community survey”, but no survey was

undertaken (Annual Report, 2009, p. 52). The target for drinking water standards was

to comply with DWSNZ 2000, and yet the council’s best-rated township water supply

“failed during Easter which resulted in unsatisfactory water being provided to large

areas of [the township]. Both alarm systems also failed.” Seven of district D’s

townships’ water supplies are “ungraded”, with the remaining two, “Unsatisfactory,

high level of risk at source, treatment and distribution” and “Unsatisfactory level of

risk for source and treatment. Unacceptable level of risk for distribution” (LTCCP,

2009, p. 103). It is not clear how the council intends to ‘lift its game’ so significantly.

6.5 Reliance on central government

In 2004, the Ministry of Tourism allocated $11 million over three years (2004-2007)

for a Tourism Demand Subsidy Scheme (TDSS) to assist small communities with

high tourism flows to invest in water and sewerage infrastructure. Funding for the

TDSS was approved in recognition of the pressure that rapid tourism growth can

place on small communities with low rating bases. Per capita costs to provide quality

infrastructure are much higher in small communities than in larger cities (MOT,

2008).

In 2005, the Labour-led government announced the $150 million Drinking-

Water Assistance Programme (DWAP) to assist small drinking-water supplies in

18

providing safe water to their communities (resident population 5,000 or fewer).5 The

programme was planned to run for 10 years. The initiative had two major

components, the Technical Assistance Programme (TAP) to train and assist

communities to improve their own supplies, and the Capital Assistance Programme

(CAP) to help fund improvements where TAP participation had shown that local

resourcing was inadequate for a good solution (DWNZ, 2008). On 1 September 2009,

the National-led government announced it was putting CAP ‘on hold’ (Ryall, 2009).

Councils should have been aware that the tourism fund had been highly

contested and that competition would be stiff for MOH funds. Nevertheless, most

councils appeared to base their projections on an assumption that central government

funds would be forthcoming. Council B noted that all of its water supplies would need

significant capital investment to meet DWSNZ 2005 but would only proceed if

subsidised by central government. Council D anticipated the Ministry of Health’s

providing assistance with all water supply quality improvements, except for one town

which is too large. Council hoped for a subsidy from the DWAP, but if it is not

forthcoming the community will have to be consulted regarding the affordability of

upgrading. This approach may be considered optimistic at best. Council E appeared to

anticipate help from the Ministries of Health and Tourism with funding (LTCCP,

2009, p. 131), even after TDSS had finished. Council F saw its role as lobbying

central government to make more funding available to rural areas to upgrade water

schemes without total reliance on rates (LTCCP, 2009, p. 51). It advised residents that

a subsidy was being sought for capital expenditure for a treatment plant because

funding assistance for upgrading water supplies would minimise the impact of large

capital expenditure on present consumers’ water rates (Annual Report 2008-2009, p. 5 Council F was granted $544,460 from TDSS in April 2006 to be used for constructing a multi-stage filtration plant followed by UV sterilisation, with the existing chlorination plant being used as a back-up only (Council F website).

19

154). Again this appears optimistic under current politico-economic circumstances.

Council G appears more prudent. Although the Ministry of Health had indicated that

at least a quarter of water supplies would be “most likely” to receive some funding,

because of the expected time delay before the subsidy would become available,

council G assumed for funding purposes that no subsidy would be received. It has

been proved right. Council D also based its assumptions on a DWAP award, but

noted: “If a subsidy is not received, the issue for the smaller communities would be

one of affordability, and consultation would need to be undertaken with these

communities” (LTTCP, 2009, p. 15).

While the National-led government has disappointed funding expectations, it

has also postponed compliance until 2016. Council C took the opportunity to shift its

anticipated compliance date to June 2015 (Annual Report 2008, p. 76). Council G was

more circumspect, recording its intention of reviewing the implications the change in

compliance dates for its water treatment capital works programme during 2009-2010,

and is likely to amend its Annual Plan for 2010-2011 to include the results of that

review (LTCCP, 2009, p. 91).

7. Discussion

The Labour-led government delegated various administratively costly functions to

councils (including foreshore decisions, prostitution control, dog control, weathertight

homes, and maintenance of air quality) as well as imposing high, national drinking-

water quality standards. The consultation processes prescribed by the Act are also

costly – the mayor of Council E noted that the LTCCP process cost $300,000

20

including $80,000 in auditing fees (LTCCP, 2009, p. 5). Clearly these are significant

sums for small rural councils experiencing straitened fiscal conditions. With regard to

water quality, some compensation was possible by applying for contestable funding

but these processes were highly competitive. The National-led government has, on the

one hand, restricted funding but has, on the other hand, postponed compliance. With

an incumbent libertarian Minister of Local Government, it is plausible that councils’

obligations may be relaxed in conjunction with rates capping of some form. Deprived

of funds and overburdened with responsibilities, local councils in New Zealand

generally perform remarkably well. Nevertheless, on the basis of this survey, it does

not appear that councils are making information about drinking-water of a sufficient

quality available to allow their community members to hold them accountable. (It is

also noteworthy that there is a dearth of water quality analysis conducted in New

Zealand (PCE, 2010), and, indeed, agricultural and industrial water usage is not

currently measured (Smith, 2010).)

8. Limitations and further research

The councils surveyed were selected for their history of failing to meet national

standards. They represents less than one tenth of New Zealand councils. Comparison

between compliant and non-complaint councils may be useful. The issue of drinking-

water compliance lends itself to longitudinal research, while this paper almost

exclusively looks at the 2009 round of annual reports and LTCCPs. Water quality is

assessed regularly, thereby permitting accountability performance over time. The

accountability provisions of the Act are in the process of amendment: these may

21

impact on authority-community discourse, with greater community participation in

water quality decisions being possible.

Water services compromise water supply (the provision of drinking water by

network reticulation to the point of supply) and wastewater services (sewerage,

treatment and disposal of sewage, and stormwater drainage). This paper is only

concerned with drinking-water supply. Nevertheless, treatment of wastewater can

have a significant effect on water supply, particularly the use of grey water in drought

prone areas.

In addition to social, economic and environmental concerns, water policy in

Aotearoa New Zealand – a bi-cultural nation founded on the Treaty of Waitingi

between the Crown and Māori – must take into account indigenous cultural values.

The interruption and contamination of natural watercourses, which is commonplace in

the water management schemes of developed countries, are likely to have significant

cultural implications, which demand due consideration but lie beyond the scope of

this paper.

References

Ball, A., 2006, Estimation of the burden of water-borne disease in New Zealand: Preliminary report, [Online; cited 12 November 2009] Available from: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5821/$File/water-borne-disease-burden-prelim-report-feb07-v2.pdf

Barrett, J., and Scott, C., 2008, Costs and funding of New Zealand local authorities: the role of

democratic discourse. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21(3) 295-304. Bush, G., 2003, Local government, in R. Miller (ed), New Zealand government and politics,

(Melbourne, Oxford University Press), pp. 161-170. Churchouse, N. (2009, November 14), Pure conflict, Dominion Post, p. C1. Controller and Auditor-General, 2005, Local government: results of the 2003-04 audits, Report of the

Controller and Auditor-General [Online; cited 4 November 2009] Available from: http://www.oag.govt.nz/local-govt/2003-04/docs/local-govt-audits.pdf

22

Dairying and Clean Streams Accord, 2003, between Fonterra Co-operative Group, regional councils, Ministry for the Environment, and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, [Online; cited 4 November 2009] Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/rural/dairying-accord-may03.pdf

Drinking Water for New Zealand (DWNZ), 2008, The drinking-water assistance programme (DWAP).

[Online; cited 14 November 2009] Available from: http://www.drinkingwater.co.nz/DWAP/dwap.asp

Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council (FASAC), 2005, 27 December, Project Update,

Conceptual Framework - Joint project of the IASB and FASB, [Online; cited 4 November 2009] Available from: http://www.fasb.org/project/conceptual_framework.shtml

Hide, R., 2009, 28 October, Reforms to help keep rate rises under control, Press release. Hide, R., and Ryall, T., 2009, 24 June. Govt gives councils more time for water supply compliance,

Press release. Houlbrooke, D., 2008, Best practice management of farm dairy effluent in the Manawatu-Wanganui

region. Report prepared for Horizons Regional Council by AgResearch Ltd. [Online; cited 14 November 2009] Available from: http://www.envirolink.govt.nz/reports/documents/421-hzlc43.pdf

Ministry of Health (MOH), 2009a, Annual review of drinking-water quality in New Zealand 2006/07,

[Online; cited 4 November 2009] Available from: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/drinking-water-quality-in-nz-annual-review-0607

Ministry of Health (MOH), 2009b, Drinking water in New Zealand: legislation, [Online; cited 12

November 2009] Available from: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/drinking-water-proposed-legislation#cost Ministry of Tourism (MOT), 2008, Small Communities with High Visitor Numbers, [Online; cited 12

November 2009] http://www.tourism.govt.nz/Funding/Small-Communities-with-High-Visitor-Numbers-/ Neems, J. (2009, 18 August), Full dirt released on Crafars, Waikato Times, p. 2. New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA), 2005 New Zealand equivalent to the IASB

Framework for the preparation and presentation of Financial Statements (Wellington, NZICA).

New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA), 2007 New Zealand equivalent to the IAS-1

Presentation of Financial Standards (NZ IAS-1)(Wellington, NZICA). Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), 2010, How Clean Is New

Zealand? Measuring and Reporting on the Health of our Environment, [Online; cited 5 May 2010] http://www.pce.parliament.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/4957/final_-_from_printerweb.pdf

Ryall, T. 2009, 1 September. Drinking water subsidy scheme on hold, Press release. Smith, N. 2010, 30 April, New regulations to improve water management, Press release. Stocker, H. Water quality and the drinking water standards. Water. September 2009. 52-53. Warren, K., 2006, Rising to the PBE challenge, Chartered Accountants Journal (New Zealand). June

2006. 19-20.