Why couldn't this have been done at the outset? Was it about money? Certainly that seems to have been part of the equation. On November 30 HBRC discussed the budget blowout for their legal expenses and Liz Lambert reminded councillors that if the prosecution was successful, HBRC could "recover costs" against HDC.
The public have been outraged by the brinkmanship which was evident the day HBRC started its prosecution against HDC for infringing the RMA consent for two of the bores in Brookvale Rd.
Under the headline "Battle puts gastro inquiry on hold" it was reported that "The district council will appear at Hastings District Court on November 28 - the same day as the second hearing for the Government inquiry into the contamination commences.
"The upcoming prosecution between two Hawke's Bay authorities has been labelled a disaster for ratepayers, as they will be funding both the prosecution and defence." [Hawke's Bay Today, November 21]
HBRC had two choices: they could have issued an infringement notice to HDC and simply let the Government inquiry start on Monday November 28, with both councils being strongly encouraged to share their information in a "no blame" setting. Or they could prosecute HDC and derail the inquiry. HBRC chose to prosecute.
To quote Justice Lyn Stevens, the chair of the Government inquiry: "A criminal process will not assist Hawke's Bay residents in that it will not focus on systemic issues and risk mitigation for the future."
If they'd chosen to issue an infringement notice it is feasible that Havelock North residents could have had their own water supply reconnected before Christmas via Brookvale bore No 3 which had been decommissioned a year ago and was not part of the gastro outbreak in August.
Instead, council staff at Hasting have had to work overtime to assist the water inquiry at the same time as being stretched to breaking point trying to resolve the current issue of water shortages resulting from Hastings residents having to share their town supply with Havelock North residents. On top of all that, they've had the threat of HBRC's prosecution hanging over them.
And no-one at HBRC saw it coming?
Surely someone sitting in the regional council offices could have foreseen that the heavy-handed option of prosecution would totally derail the water inquiry? Did they simply forget the 5,500 residents in Havelock North who suffered vomiting and diarrhoea in August, seriously compromising their immune systems?
The regional council's CEO cannot claim he was not aware that their prosecution would indeed undermine the water inquiry. Back at the first hearing on 27th October CEO Andrew Newman was seated beside HBRC's lawyer Mai Chen when Chair Lyn Stevens made it clear that "this inquiry will require a great deal of goodwill on all sides" and added that "the Government inquiry is broader than the regional council's investigation".
Certainly Chen was aware of the possibility that HBRC's contemplated prosecution could undermine the water inquiry when she argued that HBRC has an independent "statutory role" and stated that "We do not wish to undermine the inquiry".
But "undermine the inquiry" is exactly what they did. Andrew Newman chose not to issue an infringement notice but, instead, chose to commence court action before the water inquiry could even get underway on November 28.
Meanwhile, Hastings District Council is working overtime to ensure that Brookvale bore No 3 can provide a safe supply of drinking water to Havelock North by the end of January.
Pauline Doyle and Ken Keys are spokesperson for Guardians of the Aquifer.
