Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson has successfully pushed for the Council’s submission on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill to include a call for an exemption from mandatory chlorination.
The bill sets out new rules for how water services are managed, aiming to tighten water quality standards, increase regulatory oversight, and introduce economic regulations.
Although the chlorine issue is not part of the bill, Johanson successfully argued that the council should at least make an effort.
His amendment was “provide the Council with the ability to stop chlorinating its water supply while an application for an exemption is considered and determined.”
However, many of his colleagues, including mayoral candidate Sara Templeton, rejected his amendment.
Johanson said the government must make it easier for councils to apply for exemptions from chlorination requirements without forcing ratepayers to cover excessive costs.
“Everyone involved from the start will be incredibly frustrated at the huge cost we’ve had imposed on us by these water reforms, and the huge frustration at trying to get an exemption,” Johanson said.
“At the moment, we have to spend a zillion dollars just to get to a stage where we can apply for an exemption, which seems inherently unfair.”
Johanson said Christchurch ratepayers were already facing significant costs due to chlorination requirements. “I asked staff—we’re spending about $100 million on moving to chlorination, and depending on what the regulator determines, it could go up to half a billion dollars.
“This bill should give the government the opportunity to make it easier for us to have an exemption considered. The amendments we’re seeking would reduce the requirements and allow councils to apply for an exemption without being forced to chlorinate our water unnecessarily.”
The Council’s draft submission urges the government to take a more flexible approach, allowing councils to make cost-effective decisions that suit their communities.
Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt strongly opposed Johanson’s amendment. “You’re asking for an exemption to apply for an exemption. It just sounds ridiculous,” Harrison-Hunt said. “Honestly, that takes away all the attention from the really pragmatic things that Council has put into the submission.
“Everyone knows and everyone wants chlorine out of our water—I live right next to a water pump and it smells like I’m in a pool whenever they renew it. But I’m not okay with diluting a really good submission that experts have worked on just to make a political statement.” Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter also opposed the amendment.
“That’s an oxymoron—wanting an exemption while you’re waiting for one. I can’t support that,” she said. I agree with Councillor Harrison-Hunt that it will actually detract from the substantive and well-prepared submission.”
Councillor Aaron Keown said the amendment made sense as the city could be stuck with chlorine for years while waiting for an exemption.
“I think Yani’s intention with this amendment is to ask that we don’t have to chlorinate while we wait—because we could be waiting for years,” Keown said.
“It’s just a submission, it’s not a hard and fast rule. The people of Christchurch should have a say on whether they want their water chlorinated. This should be going to the public for a vote, then taken to the Government to show we have a mandate.”
Keown also said no one had ever gotten sick from Christchurch’s untreated water. “Anyone who is immunocompromised should be boiling their water anyway—you shouldn’t rely on the Council to make sure it’s demonstrably safe. That’s the advice from the District Health Board,” he said.
Councillor Kelly Barber also backed the amendment, saying Christchurch residents had been vocal about their opposition to chlorine. “The people of Christchurch have spoken long and strong—chlorine in the water is something they detest.
“Hopefully the Government will listen and find a way for us to remove chlorine rather than forcing it on us forever.”
Councillor Andrei Moore said the public expects the Council to fight against chlorination.
“If you say, ‘We made a submission on the bill,’ the public will ask, ‘Did you mention chlorine?’ And if we didn’t, they’d say, ‘Why not?’
“They don’t care about oxymorons in a submission—they care about the fact their water tastes terrible.”
Councillor Sara Templeton pushed back against suggestions that those voting against the amendment were pro-chlorine.
“No one around this table is pro-chlorine,” she said. “People are pro-health and pro-meeting our legal obligations.
“We’ve kicked the can down the road for too long on fixing leaks and renewing infrastructure. Our pipes are leaking at 27%.
“The Government’s approach hasn’t been the most helpful—it’s been a sledgehammer instead of a conversation. But we bear some responsibility as elected members for the state of our pipes and why the Government is pushing stricter water standards.”
However, Councillor Johanson told chrislynchmedia.com “it is perfectly reasonable for council to seek a provisional approval for an exemption.
“Our Council was granted a provisional status for our water safety plan, post quake because we were working towards doing the things that needed to be done.
“It should be the same with permanent chlorination. Forcing Council to permanently chlorinate its water before it can even apply for an exemption seems inherently unjust. There is nothing extraordinary or bizarre about this request.”
Johanson said staff have told him that “there is $51 million set aside in the Long Term Plan to install permanent chlorination.
“There is an additional $49 million in the Infrastructure Strategy (years 11+). Regardless of exemptions or not, the chlorination equipment still needs to be installed” Johanson said.
Voting record:
✅ For: Barber, Fields, Gough, Henstock, Keown, Moore, MacDonald, Peters
❌ Against: Cotter, Coker, Donovan, Harrison-Hunt, Scandrett, Templeton, McLellan
