This week, the Waitaki District Council resumed fluoridation after a four-month pause.
That followed a local resident commissioning an independent test showing an anomaly in the fluoride levels in the supply which was supplied to the council on October 4, 2024.
On October 10 the council "paused" fluoridation after its own independent tests found the levels were nominally outside the agreed range.
It attributed the issue to an equipment problem in the dosing of the public water supply.
On Wednesday the council issued a statement confirming it was resuming fluoridation on Thursday.
Following the October pause the council subsequently said a delay in resumption was down to the availability of its contractor.
Mr Kircher defended the council’s move.
"We’re just recognising that we don’t have a choice," he said.
"Our choice is to follow the directive — which is lawful — or we face the consequences, which is a $200,000 fine and $10,000 a day."
The council started fluoridation by the July deadline following an earlier directive from the director-general of health.
The issue has been widely debated in the local government sector with some councils trying to delay the inevitable.
Most recently, the Whangārei District Council voted to disobey the directive, although it does not have to comply until March this year.
Fluoride Free Waitaki said the council should make a stand on principle.
"We are disgusted that the Waitaki District Council has chosen to recommence dosing Oamaru's drinking water with fluoride chemicals," spokeswoman Sheryl Black said.
"They unquestionably should be erring on the side of caution and leaving it turned off."
She cited "overwhelming, recent, scientific evidence" and a US Federal Court ruling "showing that fluoride presents an ‘unreasonable risk of harm'."
Ms Black said their group did not believe the district council was meeting its legal obligation under the Health Act "to protect public health and to remove any condition likely to be injurious to health".
She said council had the option, as stated by Justice Radich in a June 2024 High Court ruling, of seeking an interim injunction until a case between the New Health New Zealand (NHNZ) vs the director-general of health was heard.
Part of the court order required the director-general to complete an analysis of the Bill of Rights around her directives to fluoridate.
"An interim injunction would keep fluoridation suspended in Oamaru until the outcome of this court case," Ms Black said.
Council infrastructure manager Joshua Rendell said this week the director-general had now completed the Bill of Rights analysis.
"All cases brought before the High Court have confirmed that the directives are lawful," he said.
Mr Rendell also suggested "all further inquiries" on the fluoride matter should be directed to the Ministry of Health.
Ms Black said that was not good enough.
"Waitaki District Council will say that the [director-general] has completed her Bill of Rights analysis, but that is only her opinion.
"The High Court will decide whether her directives are unlawful, and that case is not likely to be before the court until late 2025.
"WDC should be listening to its constituents and following Whangārei District Council's brave example of resisting the directives," Ms Black said.
Mr Kircher said it was moot but he thought a majority of ratepayers would be unhappy at the council incurring "a massive cost" by defying the order.
The fines were in the realm of $3.5 million in one year for not complying, " or get on with it".
He ruled out seeking an injunction with the associated costs given that no other council had succeeded on that front to date.
"Again, do our ratepayers want us to waste money?"
