LETTER: Treatment of Rarotonga’s water supply

Monday 23 November 2020 | Written by Supplied | Published in Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Share

"Ozone is far more powerful than chlorine and there is no residual foul taste, and while I am certain the authorities would have considered it, it would have been ruled out for no other reason that it would require the electrification of all ten intakes and the impact of that cost on what was already an embarrassment would have been untenable."

I read with great interest Steve Raymond’s letter in Saturday, November 21 edition, about ozonating the water supply particularly because I canvassed the subject in the other newspaper’s five-page catch-all article January 15, 2020.

Ozone is far more powerful than chlorine and there is no residual foul taste, and while I am certain the authorities would have considered it, it would have been ruled out for no other reason that it would require the electrification of all ten intakes and the impact of that cost on what was already an embarrassment would have been untenable.

Efficient dosing with chlorine would also require electricity but again at great additional cost to an already overblown budget. That is why trucking was chosen despite all the human frailties and contamination potential associated with that.

While the Speaker of the House is being rightly criticised for preventing the chemical treatment of the water supply petition going forward to a Select Committee, even a blind man can see that she is but the pawn of the Henry Puna/Mark Brown duo. Between the three of them they have trampled upon fundamental human rights and should be answerable for their actions.

As a consequence, the subject, and choices, have never received a proper hearing.

While the commitment to potable water is commendable, it is not needed for bathing, toilet flushing, laundry, irrigation and multiple other applications which do not enter the body so why not examine what I imagine is a far cheaper option of providing each household with its own UV unit or domestic ozonator for which it would then be responsible.

Comparing that against the lifetime cost of delivering chlorine to ten intakes and no guarantees should be a no brainer.

John M Scott