Editorial | Silly, whingeing National Water Commission

It is outrageous and high-handed that the National Water Commission (NWC) has stopped providing the Kingston and St Andrew local government its water quality reports as punishment for what the company claims was the authority’s recent “misrepresentation” of the data.

If, indeed, the state water company believes that it was wrongly embarrassed by the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) and that the action caused, or was likely to cause, “hysteria and undue alarm” in the public, it should do what water companies across the world increasingly do – which is not to become even more opaque.

Rather, the NWC should opt for greater transparency, including publishing its water quality analyses on its website, in a style and format that makes the information easily accessible to the public, including independent analysts.

Additionally, the NWC’s regulator, the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR), should require the commission to issue half-yearly, if not quarterly, consumer confidence reports (CCRs) to its clients on the quality of water they received over the period, as happens in some countries.

This service standard, however, does not have to await a determination by the OUR. The minister with responsibility for water, Matthew Samuda, should insist on it immediately becoming a voluntary obligation of the NWC.

ARBITRARY DECISION

The arbitrary decision by the water company to halt the sharing of water quality data with the KSAMC arose from a dispute last month over the interpretation of one such report by Jesse James Clarke, a lecturer in microbiology and food quality standards, who chairs the corporation’s public health committee. Mr Clarke is a member of the People’s National Party (PNP), which controls the KSAMC, but is in opposition nationally.

Mr Clarke claimed that NWC analyses showed higher than appropriate levels of faecal coliforms in some water systems in rural parts of the KSAMC. The corporation passed a resolution insisting that the problem be corrected.

The NWC rejected the statement that it has a water quality problem. Not only was its water safe, but was in compliance with health ministry and World Health Organization (WHO) standards.

But while the commission highlighted the high standards of the municipality’s major water supply systems, it did concede that there were “small rural water systems (serving as few of 40 people) that can pose problems” because of environmental issues.

These, the NWC said, are closely monitored and problems quickly dealt with, even as it constantly reviews “infrastructural design”.

In the middle of that imbroglio, the health ministry confirmed that water samples from some NWC systems had tested positive for E.coli, but not at levels to cause concern. There was no need, in the circumstances, for the issuance of public health advisories.

This newspaper quite understands that government politicians – and the NWC, if it genuinely felt that the matter was mishandled by Mr James and the KSAMC’s leadership – were irritated over the issue.

But the water commission went further. Its representatives didn’t attend a meeting of the KSAMC’s public health committee, and didn’t submit water quality reports. When asked about it, the NWC, which is essentially a monopoly, whinged about supposed reputational damage and business disruption; declared lack of confidence in the municipal corporation; and announced that it had decided “to cease the submission of (quality standard) reports to the KSAMC, effective immediately”. It would instead provide its analyses to the health ministry.

IMMEDIATE MATTERS

There are two immediate matters of note in this decision.

First, as is the case with other municipal authorities, the KSAMC, under the Public Health Act, is the Local Board of Health for Kingston and St Andrew. It has responsibility for public health matters in the municipality.

While the law does not specifically list potable water quality among the issues for which the KSAMC has oversight, it would be a dereliction of duty by the authority if it did not pay close attention to this matter, notwithstanding the overarching obligations of the health ministry. But, in a fit of pique, and with its nose out of joint, the NWC unnecessarily inserted itself in a political dispute between the governing and opposition parties when it should have been standing above the fray, calmly and rationally explaining the issues to the public from its perspective.

Instead, it retreated into opacity.

Here is something the NWC should know. In the European Union (EU), member states must publish annual reports on compliance with water quality standards, although timelines for supplies to consumers vary by country.

In the UK, the Drinking Water Quality Inspectorate, as well as other agencies, publishes annual and quarterly reports on standards. Some suppliers sometimes provide more frequent data.

In the United States, water suppliers have to provide consumers with CCRs at least once a year. However, anyone can access information on the water quality of every system, in every state in real-time daily via the website of the United States Geological Services (USGS) and other agencies. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides, on its website, tutorials on how to read water quality reports.

This is the approach the NWC should take, rather than picking up its marbles and walking off in a huff. Its managers should remember that the company belongs to Jamaica’s taxpayers.