TasWater: Looking Through A Lens Of Lead …

Thanks for this photo, Christine Booth… Meeting of July 18 at Pioneer Hall, hosted by Mayor Howard, Cnr. Stein and Cnr. Jessup (not in photo).

On Wednesday night Dorset’s Mayor, Mr Howard, spoke to address Pioneer’s continuing concerns about drinking water, with at least three homes now known to have lead-painted roofs for the collection of drinking water, as per TasWater’s Service Replacement Scheme at Pioneer.

The resolution of the meeting, called by Dorset Council, was for the Mayor to write to all residents to formalise their view about a mini-treatment plant at Pioneer, identical to the one recently installed at nearby Herrick and Gladstone.

Mayor Howard said that it is his ultimate intention to write to Minister Peter Gutwein, the responsible Minister, and our member for Bass, to seek approval for a mini-treatment plant at Pioneer.

While the Dorset Mayor’s new participation on this issue is welcome, it is of concern that, at the time of writing this article, he has not yet contacted the three home-owners who have lead-painted roofs, despite having received each of their telephone numbers early last week.

And surprisingly, Mayor Howard stated that lead-painted roofs are not necessarily of concern to him. Mayor Howard said at the meeting on Wednesday that a greater problem is the ‘low rainfall’ at Pioneer, in conjunction with the ‘small roof catchments on many of the cottages’.

TasWater wrote to me, on June 8, 2018, to say that the testing of roofs for lead paint prior to the installation of rainwater tanks at Pioneer was not their responsibility, but rather, it was the customer’s responsibility to ask for a test.

TasWater and the Dorset Council have so far rejected public requests for further lead (Pb) testing at Pioneer.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has not made any intervention, nor have they made a comment.

Mr. David Downie, president of the Owners’ Representatives Group, who is employed to represent TasWater’s owner-councils and to fulfill their legislated obligations, has not responded to e-mails at all in recent months.

Local Government Association President, Mr. Doug Chipman, rejected the request in a two-sentence text message to me on May 29, his reply to my detailed, formal letter to him. And another equally curt response from Mr. Chipman, another two-sentence text message, on May 29, 2018, to my second formal letter to him.

Neither has Mr. Gutwein nor Mr Ferguson replied, the responsible Ministers, as the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Health, respectively.

Mayor Howard confirmed to Pioneer’s residents that the 29 councils have already agreed to proceed with the revised model for the ownership and governance of TasWater, due to be presented for approval to the Tasmanian parliament in the Spring session, 2018.

At the meeting on Wednesday night the Mayor noted that under the new model the State will contribute $20M new money to TasWater every year.

The Mayor said that this new money could be accessed for a mini-treatment plant at Pioneer.

Below is my July 17 letter of reply to the Board of TasWater and CEO Brewster, in response to their letter to me on June 8, 2018 …

Tim Slade
Pioneer TAS 7264
Tel: 6354 2200

July 17, 2018.

Dear CEO Brewster and the Board of TasWater (and Mrs Mercer),

First, the level of discussions we have had, and necessarily must continue to have until all matters are addressed and resolved, are beyond the scope of a General Manager of Community Relations, Mrs Mercer, despite your recent delegation of responsibility to her. So I will respond to you directly here and refer to TasWater’s letter to me on June 8, 2018, as yours, CEO Brewster.

On behalf of the people here at Pioneer, I once again refute the many misrepresentations by you in your most recent letter of June 8, 2018.

Over a number of years, and in numerous private and public written communications, all of which have been brought to your personal attention, and to the attention of your Chairman and the Minister for Local Government and the ORG president and the LGAT president, I have articulated the failed processes and outcomes, and your obfiscatory actions, at Pioneer, and in relation to statewide policy.

Your letter of June 8 is sadly a rewriting of history on many of the issues you feign to address, all of which remain current, despite five years and eight months having passed since the constant alert of 2012 for lead-contaminated drinking water. And Pioneer continues to experience lead-contaminated drinking water, this time from lead-painted roof catchments.

1. In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘…Pioneer property owners have the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of tanks, filters, pumps, gutters and roofs.’

Fact (a)

At least three homes that I am aware, new information to me in the past weeks from interviews, are confirmed lead-painted roofs:

## Main Road – Ms. [Name]. Test by MacQuarie University’s Dr Harvey, 2018, confirming lead paint. Telephone: #### ####.

## Main Road – Test by TasWater, delivered to Mr [Name] in 2016, with no remedy to set-up. The TasWater tank was installed in late 2015. Telephone: #### ### ###.

‘## Main Road – Test by TasWater, delivered to Mr [Name] with no remedy to set-up, and the tank itself not installed until late 2017.

Given this information, there is a possibility that there are more homes with lead-painted roofs at Pioneer, homes which source their drinking water from the roof catchment.

Fact (b)

The photos are examples of but a few of the roofs at Pioneer where TasWater obviously did not repair to a reasonable state in the first instance. So it is a deception to suggest formally here in your letter that all responsibility now rests with the property owner.

As such, I assert that TasWater has breached clause 4.1 (b) of the Service Replacement Contract:

Clause 4.1 states: ‘Subject to the Customer completing the Customer Works in accordance with clause 6.1, TasWater must ensure that the Works are undertaken and completed…’ Clause 4.1 (b): ‘with due care and skill, and to a standard reasonably to be expected of a person both competent and experienced in undertaking works similar to the Works…’

There has been a blatant disregard by you as CEO to the dangers of lead-painted roofs at Pioneer, even though you have personally attended several Pioneer meetings in years gone by. As CEO you cannot say you were not personally aware of the unsafe condition of these homes. You have seen these homes with your own eyes. Your letter of June 8, 2018, only underlines this disregard.

2. In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘the Pioneer Service Replacement Program… is now complete, and has been delivered in accordance with the expectations determined by the Pioneer community in 2012 and in consultation with our regulators’.

Fact (a)

The Pioneer Service Replacement Program is NOT complete, despite your June 8 written assertion that it is complete. I include here the shocking photographs of several roofs at Pioneer which are obviously not fit for purpose, and in several cases, TasWater has not connected the roofs to the rainwater tank because you are aware that these roofs are not fit for purpose and most likely lead-paint contaminated. At least three of these roofs have been shown by lab tests to be lead-painted. The fact that residents in Pioneer, five years and eight months after the alert, continue to live in such third-world conditions, knowingly by TasWater and its overseers, and that you, the CEO, write to me on June 8, 2018 to insist that all is complete, says everything about how little care or competency either yourself or your overseers have for the citizens of Pioneer. This selection of photos is not a complete folio, as there are other very poor roofs in addition to these presented here. This is obviously NOT what we agreed to at Pioneer back in 2013.

Fact (b)

In the first town meeting of 2013 where options were discussed, residents were promised that each roof would be repaired or replaced so that is was suitable for the collection of drinking water. Immediately following this particular meeting, the town organised a petition, signed by approximately 80% of homes, and submitted to the Tasmanian parliament by Bryan Wightman MP, Bass, which stated: Clause 2 (a): ‘Ben Lomond Water (now, TasWater) must repair roof, gutters and downpipes, etc. to a standard suitable for collecting rainwater for drinking’. And furthermore: Clause 2 (c): ‘Ben Lomond Water (now, TasWater) must provide a limited service, at a nominal rate, to the boundary of each property to meet general purpose needs.’

So in your letter of June 8, 2018, your misrepresent this fundamental promise and the expectations of residents, which of course lies at the heart of this entire issue.

Fact (c)

The alert occured in November, 2012, so there was absolutely no discussion of options with Pioneer until 2013.

So the date you cite in your letter of June 8, 2018, is incorrect from the start.

Fact (d)

All of this when a newly built mini-treatment plant has been built at Herrick, less than 5km from Pioneer. You as CEO were asked on the public record by the editor of the North-Eastern Advertiser to say if this Herrick plant has capacity to service Pioneer. You as CEO ignored the question, while answering other questions for the newspaper. The following week, I repeated this question to you about the capacity of the Herrick scheme (and other questions), but you as CEO once again did not provide a response. But in later weeks you provided comment to the North-Eastern Advertiser on the good news of the opening of the Gladstone mini scheme. Clearly, as CEO you have avoided this central question as it relates to the people of Pioneer and their drinking water quality.

3.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘[d]uring the community consultation process it was agreed that existing roofs would be tested upon request. This testing occurred as part of the program’s delivery’.

Fact (a)

The testing of roofs for lead-paint is a duty of care which TasWater obviouisly must be responsible. The decision for roof testing in relation to probable dangers to human health cannot under any circumstance be deferred to a customer. This is TasWater’s duty of care. All roofs should have been tested for lead (Pb) paint by TasWater.

I know that in my personal case, I was never asked directly if I wanted my roof tested for lead. From my discussions around town, I realise that this is the case for most of the town too.

4.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘We note this [rainwater tank] testing was presented by TasWater as part of the overall replacement program and not at the direction of the Ombudsman as you have suggested. Testing was conducted for those properties owners who accepted this offer’.

Fact (a)

Five years and eight months after the alert, TasWater offered residents a free one-off test for rainwater tanks. This is an unreasonable span of years to wait for such a test, especially given the haphazard or non-existent testing of roofs by TasWater in preceeding years. To apologise for a delay, as you do in your letter, is nothing more than an excuse for negligence.

Fact (b)

I provide here two letters from the Ombudsman, dated June 22, 2016 and August 29, 2016, where the Ombudsman wrote to TasWater requesting that such tests for lead and other contaminants be tested for in rainwater tanks at Pioneer. Reading the Ombudsman’s letters, one can see that a further delay of more than one year and six months occured before TasWater ultimately offered an invitation to residents for tests.

Fact (c)

TasWater bungled the invitation process in 2018. There was no mention of lead (Pb) testing in the invitation to residents. The only mention was of microbiology (bacteria). I wrote to you as CEO to request a rewriting and reissuing of your invitation. You seemed unaware of what was to be tested for, or if lead was to be tested for at all. So the idea that this testing initiative had its origins with TasWater rather than the Ombudsman, as you would have us believe from your letter to me of June 8, holds no water at all. Letters to me from the Ombudsman are attached to this letter. As CEO, you wrote to me that you required ‘time to refresh myself’ on the matter. After further delay, this occured, and new invitations were sent.

So there was confusion about what was being offered to residents, a situation of comparing apples with oranges, or rather, comparing bacteria tests with lead (Pb) tests, and this confusion was caused directly by TasWater’s mismanagement. Residents were not responding to a clear or accurate question.

Common sense and a duty of care would have dictated that TasWater simply telephone directly or visit properties, if they were to achieve a high acceptance rate, as you would think TasWater would like to see. But rather, we saw an ‘invitation process’, via letter, bungled, and this after a five year and eight month wait. I do not accept that you have been sincere Mr Brewster as CEO. The facts tell the story, despite your protestations, and I would ask overseers to take careful note of these facts and nothing else.

5. In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘…we would have preferred to complete …subsequent water quality testsing in a more timely manner, and acknowledge our learning from this’.

Fact (a)

The Ombudsman’s letter (see attachment) shows that you were provided with ample time. In fact, at the time of the Ombudsman’s letters to you, you had already failed to enact this testing for several years. Apologies are fine, but when they are merely excuses, and without any provision of a reason for it, then they cannot be accepted as sincere. What is the nuts-and-bolts reason, please, CEO, why it took you five years and five months to conduct tests for lead and other contaminants in rainwater tank drinking water, and by invitation only? At what point do your overseers engage to sanction you?

6.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ’42 of the 43 eligible properties participated in the program’.

Fact (a)

As you are well aware as the CEO, once the option for Pioneer had been decided, the only avenue to receive drinking water that was not lead-contaminated was to sign contracts giving consent. This signature represents a consent to receive the human right of safe drinking water, rather than an acceptance of each and every clause within two long and complicated contracts prepared by TasWater for more than six months, a further unreasonable process and circumstance for delay for residents.

Fact (b)

At least two eligible properties did not participate: 1. Mr. [Name]; 2. Mr and Mrs [Name].

7.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you misrepresent my written communications to you over several years when you write: ‘You note that prior to the Do Not Consume (DNC) notification in November 2012 there was an instance of consecutive quarterly results which exceeded those levels, and it was those consecutive results that activated the notification process established by the DHHS’.

Fact (a)

This is a direct misrepresentation. As you as CEO are very aware, from my many formal written communications, I was told by your Water Quality Officer, Mr Stapleton, that in fact, there is no requirement for two consecutive high readings for lead (Pb) as a prerequisite for an alert. Up until this conversation with Mr Stapleton on March 11, 2016, Pioneer had been led to believe that this was indeed a prerequisite ~ two consecutive, high results. But Mr Stapleton, as you have repeatedly been informed in writing, yet with no written reply on this question over years, the fact of the situation is that in relation to lead (Pb) a ‘flexible approach’ is used in the calling of alerts, with no prerequisite. In other words, TasWater can call an alert at any time they wish. TasWater do not have to wait for two consecutive, high results. Mr Stapleton went to considerable lengths in this conversation to make sure I understood this point. Mr Stapleton went on to say, in relation to Pioneer, pre-alert: ‘That wouldn’t happen now; I’m here now’. This was an admission that a failed process occured at Pioneer, pre-alert. During this time there was a theme of lead, above and below the 10ug/L ADW guideline, and furthermore, there were decades of an unknown data history for lead at Pioneer. These decades of unknown data history should have formed a major part of TasWater’s consideration for calling an alert. A precautionary approach should and could have been taken at Pioneer. Instead, almost three years of a known theme of lead, as per the beginning of data for lead at Pioneer (2009), before an alert was belatedly called in November, 2012.

This is a fundamental point, and a fact which I have deferred from the Integrity Commission, until now, but given your letter of June 8, 2018, where you once again deliberately misrepresent the paramaters of this issue of health dangers at Pioneer, I feel I have no choice but to proceed now to the Integrity Commission. Indeed, I have suggested to you in previous correspondences that I would regrettably have to proceed since all responsible players including yourself have refused to answer in writing, over many years, and upon many formal requests, the Pioneer question:

SHOULD THE ALERT FOR LEAD (Pb) AT PIONEER HAVE BEEN CALLED EARLIER?

If this question proves to be one for the DHHS, as well as for yourself as CEO of TasWater, then this must be tested by the Integrity Commission, in the long-standing absence of a satisfactory response, or any response at all until your letter of June 8, 2018.

8.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘I understand that you attended community meetings at which Ben Lomond Water’s water industry professionals were accompanied by representatives from DHHS, and test results were provided in both data and graph form’.

Fact (a)

This is true, but at this time residents were told that the prerequisite for an alert for lead was consecutive, high results. This is why we at the time accepted this explanation. However, at least two years further on from this meeting, in 2016 Mr Stapleton underlined that no such prerequisite exists. Thus the context for the town discussion in in 2013 over graphs and data was based upon a misleading premise. We would not have accepted this explanation if we had known that there is in fact no formal prerequisite for calling an alert for lead (Pb), that ‘a flexible approach’ can be applied, especially in instances where there are decades of unknown lead data history. Given the formal silence of all major player on this Pioneer question since my conversation with Mr Stapleton was communicated to you and others, and in the media, in 2016, I stand by my claim that there continues to be a lack of transparency at TasWater and at the DHHS.

9.

In your letter of June 8, 2018, you write: ‘There is no obligation to provide Board minutes to external parties’.

I maintain my request for a transcript of TasWater’s Board meeting of March 28, 2018, in discussion of the statewide monthly data reporting policy.

I wish to understand if Pioneer was discussed in relation to this subsequent adoption by the Board of this statewide policy for monthly, full data transparency. This three years after I first brought it to TasWater, then via Alderman Dale Jessup and Dorset Council, then passed via LGAT. A one-page pictorial model, quarterly, with no baseline data, designed by TasWater alone, was the grossly unsatisfactory result. And it was proven that TasWater had not shared this model with the 29 councils for either input or approval. A further two years and six months of lobbying by me was required, gaining support such as the in-principle decision in favour by the Upper House of the Tasmanian parliament, brought by Tania Rattray MLC, Apsley. And the proposed policy was also formally adopted as Party policy by Tas. Labor in 2016, and Tas. Greens in 2015.

Specifically, I wish to know if the Pioneer question was discussed by the Board on May 28, 2018 ~ Should the alert for lead at Pioneer have been called earlier?

In short, TasWater fought against this statewide policy. Furthermore, to detail merely one example for you, as CEO you named me personally in the North-Eastern Advertiser to publically state that the policy would be too expensive, that it was unnecessary, with specific assertion, quote: ‘Tim Slade’s demands…’ As a private citizen, I had to bear this attack, but you were never sanctioned by the Board.

The facts as we know them now is that the cost for this policy, as per TasWater’s belated cost-analysis, are a tiny $2k (two-thousand dollars) per council, per year. For full data transparency on a monthly basis.

Once again, with the passage of time, the facts became known, and these disingenuous representations by you as CEO, in public, and in private written communications to key stakeholders, also sent to me by you, to the effect that the policy would be extravagantly expensive and unneccesary, were seen for what they were, obfiscatory tactics at a personal level to terminate the proposed policy.

During those three years, you as CEO used every tactic possible to destroy the policy for all Tasmanians, to misrepresent the facts to stakeholders, and to undermine my personal credability.

~ ~ ~

In summary, your persistent misrepresentations as CEO are, at the micro level at Pioneer, and at the macro level, statewide, unacceptable. And there has been a complete absence of oversight from Owners’ Representatives Group president, Mr. Downie, LGAT president, Mr. Chipman, and the responsible Minister, the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Gutwein, notwithstanding numerous factual and polite letters to each of these members over several years.

It is unreasonable for it to be for a private citizen, a volunteer, to correct the record, not only once, but repeatedly, over many years, and across a spectrum of issues and events, as has been necessary again in my letter today in response to your letter of June 8, 2018.

The photos I provide to your Board today tell more than can be said with a thousand words… The evidence is plain to see in these photos.

I no longer have trust in you to be sincere, nor effective, in your role as the CEO of TasWater, and I submit that you be sanctioned by the Board, or relieved from your position.

Sincerely,

Tim Slade (B.Ed.)
Pioneer, Tasmania.

Download …

Letter_to_Tim_Slade_from_Brewster__Mercer_-_Pioneer_Service_Replacement_Program_-_8_June_2018.pdf

*Tim Slade is an MEAA member, and he is a resident of Pioneer, Tasmania.