City Retains Aa Rating For Water Quality

12 SEPTEMBER 2012

For Immediate Release

Hamiltonians are drinking some of the best water in the country.

Hamilton City Council has been given an ‘Aa’ water quality rating by the Ministry of Health in the 2011-2012 Annual Survey of municipal water supplies. The rating covers the Hamilton Water Treatment Plant, as well as the Hamilton City and Temple View water supply areas.

The survey is carried out by district health boards across the nation on all municipal water supplies to ensure they meet Drinking Water New Zealand Standards, governed by the Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007. Drinking water supplies which receive an 'Aa' grading are described by the Ministry of Health as “completely satisfactory with an extremely low level of risk”.

Tim Harty, Council’s City Waters Manager, says the Aa rating is the result of the hard work and commitment of the City Waters team.

“City Waters staff pride themselves on delivering a vital core service to our city and its residents, and the Aa rating recognizes their delivery of best practice and use of the grading system to continually refine and improve our processes and systems,” says Mr Harty.

“High-quality clean water is something our City Waters staff members strive for, and Hamiltonians can be confident in the water we are providing to them.” Hamilton has retained an Aa water quality rating for more than 20 years.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

"Unlawful, Unjustified And Unreasonable": Report Into Urewera Raids Finds Police Acted Unlawfully

Independent Police Conduct Authority Chair Judge Sir David Carruthers said today that the decision by the then Commissioner of Police to undertake the operation in Ruatoki Valley and elsewhere on 15 October 2007 was reasonable and justified.

“However, the road blocks established by Police at Ruatoki and Taneatua were unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable... Police had no legal basis for stopping and searching vehicles or photographing drivers or passengers,” he said...

The report also showed that the detention of the occupants at five properties examined by the Authority was unlawful and unreasonable. More>>