Bruce Bisset.
Perhaps there's something in the water - other than chlorine, fluoride, and E.coli - that drives officialdom mad, for the politicisation of regulatory process over the Havelock North gastro outbreak is rapidly becoming farcical.
First the terms of reference set for the Government's inquiry into how and why 5000 people suffered severe sickness from drinking water seem heavy on symptoms (the event itself) and light on underlying cause - at least as far as wider environmental threats are concerned.
Though if (as seems likely) sufficient concerns are raised, the commission's findings may yet surprise. It depends how unconstrained they allow themselves to be.
Then the regional council decides to pre-emptively conduct its own inquiry, draw its own conclusions, and pursue a prosecution against Hastings District Council for what is described as a "technical breach" of the water supply consent conditions. This despite its own monitoring consistently reporting the condition in question had been complied with.
Other than wasting ratepayers' money and disrupting the Government inquiry - which has had to be postponed, to wait on the prosecution to be heard - what purpose does this action serve?
Two possible reasons spring to mind: it acts to deflect blame by having fingers pointed at anyone but themselves; and second (though surely this could not be the case) allows council's officers to cock a snook at the new councillors, indicative of an internal power struggle.
I mention this only because the councillors, like the public, first heard about the prosecution by reading this newspaper. And because it's no secret there's considerable tension between the existing management regime and the "new broom" council over the fate of the Ruataniwha dam and irrigation scheme.
Tension that has already led to the resignation of the council's investment company HBRIC's chairman, Andy Pearce - sowing renewed discord amongst the councillors.
But the main thing wrong with this prosecution is that, on the face it, it is simply that: wrong.
See, it's my understanding HBRC is alleging some of the valves at the Brookvale Rd wellheads were not properly maintained, and therefore (or so it's inferred) could have allowed contaminated water to seep into the bore(s).
Even if there was a maintenance issue, it's unclear how (or indeed whether) this would have allowed the ingress of dirty water to the aquifer; it certainly seems a long bow to suggest it was the cause of such a virulent and concentrated contamination as to cause such widespread illness.
Sure, perhaps such a "spot source" was the cause; but in that case, wouldn't the regional council serve us better by finding and prosecuting the person(s) responsible for the actual pollution?
Besides, it doesn't gel with the fact that the bores at Wilson Rd (Flaxmere) and Frimley Park (Hastings) also recorded contamination by E.coli just a week after the Brookvale Rd bores supplying Havelock North did so. Plus Eastbourne St (Hastings) bore on October 1.
Nor can it explain how these bores, drilled into a different aquifer and at greater depths, should seemingly be affected by the same event.
One piece of the puzzle due out today is the GNS Science report on the relative age of water in the various aquifers. Anecdotally it appears there may be more "young" water (a year or less old) flowing at the bore sites; if this proves so, it begs the question as to whether the profusion of new bottling plants may be drawing water through the system quicker than before.
The overall safeguarding of the quality of our water - and who gets it - is the preserve of the regional council. Perhaps it should prosecute itself.