The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

New Providence’s frequent supply shortages resulted in the Water & Sewerage Corporation making compromises on water quality and maintenance of a key reverse osmosis plant, Tribune Business can reveal.

An internal Water & Sewerage Corporation report obtained by this newspaper reveals that the Windsor reverse osmosis plant, one of the two facilities supplying its New Providence customers, produced water that on average contained “69 per cent more Total Dissolved Solids” than allowed under its original contract.

There is nothing to suggest that the Bahamian public’s health was put in jeopardy by this situation, or that Windsor’s existing operator, BISX-listed Consolidated Water, was responsible or should be held accountable for this.

And the Corporation report states that Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) had rarely caused adverse health effects, but if they were present at a high level they often caused “excessive red water” and “objectionable taste” for Bahamian customers.

But the Water & Sewerage Corporation report, noting that the target quality was 50 parts per million (ppm) for TDS, reveals: “There was a shortage of supply in New Providence, and hence almost all water of any quality was accepted, including water that should have been dumped (greater than 415 parts per million).......

“The Corporation did not monitor or control the metering of the various grades of water quality, and hence did not exercise the necessary controls to ensure the penalties for high TDS were appropriately and accurately applied.

“The quality of water leaving the Windsor pumping station was not optimised, and hence the essence of the original need for the reverse osmosis plant was difficult to achieve.”

The contract between the Water & Sewerage Corporation and the Windsor plant operator, originally Waterfields (it was acquired by Consolidated Water in 2003), stipulated that the price the former paid for the water was to be reduced by 0.07 per cent per 1,000 imperial gallons for every TDS that exceeded the 50 limit.

And the report makes clear that a system to verify water quality, and enforce this pricing mechanism, was never put into effect. And the result was that there were frequent disagreements between the Water & Sewerage Corporation and Waterfields over the TDS readings.

But, analysing Windsor’s water quality between 2002 and 2013, the report adds: “The actual average water quality TDS reading was calculated to be 213 ppm.

“Waterfields provided an average of 69 per cent more Total Dissolved Solids in the water than originally agreed.”

Noting the Water & Sewerage Corporation’s emphasis on water supply as opposed to quality, the report said: “The Water Quality Metric has historically been secondary to the Water Supply Quantity Metric.

“It was expressed during interviews with Water & Sewerage Corporation lower management that the Corporation had been experiencing severe water shortage challenges for many years, and hence a default agreement to accept all grade water that can and may be produced by the RO Plant.

“These expressions were in significant contrast to the Corporation’s written position in 2001, where Waterfields had offered an emergency increase in RO water production in the wake of Hurricane Michelle. The Corporation rejected the offer in light of the condition of the offer for a waiver of the water quality penalty.”

And the report, which is a review of the 20-year Windsor supply contract, also reveals that the Water & Sewerage Corporation’s concerns over New Providence water shortages between 2003-2008 resulted in it asking Consolidated Water to defer planned maintenance at the Windsor plant.

This resulted in the deterioration of equipment, with the result that the plant was operating at less than optimal efficiency.

While the report indicates that Consolidated Water’s arrival improved the Windsor reverse osmosis plant’s efficiency and operations, it reveals that there were “significant challenges” with equipment failures from the contract’s start.

“These problems were exacerbated between the years 2003 and 2008, when the Corporation requested Waterfields to forgo what was described as ‘much needed maintenance on various pieces of equipment throughout the plant to the detriment of the plant efficiency/condition’,” the report disclosed.

“The ongoing requests were reportedly made in response to the fragile water supply situation in New Providence.

“The opportunity cost of the foregone maintenance was the introduction of accumulated annual maintenance owing to Waterfields Plant, along with the allowance of a 154 million imperial gallons [zero] penalty concession for planned maintenance.

“The Corporation agreed to extend the 10-week accumulated maintenance period over two years with a reduced output guaranteed by approximately 0.5 million imperial gallons per day.”

Pointing to a troubled relationship between wholesale producer and retailer, the report said: “The Corporation’s decision not to use a standard form of contract resulted in less certainty on disputed issues between the parties, which may have otherwise been more predictable with a more detailed contract.

“The relationship between the parties was often unnecessarily strained where the Corporation took decisions that Waterfields considered to have fallen short of a ‘win-win’ position.”