Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Drinking Water Supplies

overly complicated, costly and bureaucratic for very small and small suppliers who are not commercial and are run by volunteers.

possibly for some. In our case we have already invested in a centralised treatment solution that works.
However, if the rules were to get too complicated/costly/bureaucratic, people may well 'de-centralise'.

keep it simple and reduce bureaucracy.
currently it is overly complicated for volunteers.

chlorination is not needed or wanted.
Whilst it is acknowledged that adding chlorine to water can be a cost effective way of killing potentially harmful organisms for large suppliers, it is also worth noting that chlorine can cause adverse health reactions in some people. It is also an aesthetic issue. It has a noticeable smell and taste compared to non-chlorinated water. For small/very small suppliers, chlorine should only be used in cases where the system needs flushing out (or by choice). UV and filters are sufficient for ongoing operation. Not only do we have concerns over health/aesthetics but there are the cost and time considerations. Our system has been well set-up. It is well monitored and the water quality tested for years without incident. Why add complications and additional cost when they are NOT needed (or wanted).

no chlorine please.
keep bureaucracy to a minimum. daily testing is unrealistic.
do not impose processes on existing suppliers when things are already working well.

no chlorine please.
keep bureaucracy to a minimum. daily testing is unrealistic.
do not impose processes on existing suppliers when things are already working well.

competencies validated by whom? Do not make this complicated or costly. Very small and small providers are non-commercial run by volunteers.
ensure there is no additional work/maintenance or other requirements that are not currenly required.

unrealistic for non-commercial suppliers run by volunteers. Keep testing simple. The processes and regime we have currently works well and has for years.

unrealistic for non-commercial suppliers run by volunteers. Keep testing simple. The processes and regime we have currently works well and has for years.
no chlorine please unless there is a proven risk.

daily testing is unrealistic. keep is simple and keep costs low.

keep it simple. This is the water WE drink - we are supplying water to ourselves.. For small providers who are volunteers, keep it simple. No reems of paper or rules - we can use common sense. If the water is contaminated we can talk to the users - they are our neighbours (and fellow shareholders in the water company)

how will training be validated? Will there be a cost for this? Agree on standards but keep it simple and low cost please.

somewhat over the top for non-commercial entities run by volunteers (who consume the water). It is in our own interest to ensure water is safe. We do not need 'auditing' with additional costs and time to prepare.

Please do not make the rules, systems and processes too complicated or costly for small/very small suppliers. If it is too complicated or costly it is highly likely that individuals will take care of their own water supply – either by drilling their own well or via rain collection. Not only will this be counter productive to the goal of overall water safety, it will create duplication, additional costs and no monitoring will occur.