For years Central Hawke's Bay District Council (CHBDC) and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council (HBRC) have disputed, fought over, and ultimately worked together on the path forward for the southern council's wastewater treatment ponds.
The regional council's regulatory role means it has to enforce a range of rules and is responsible for bringing other territorial local authorities to heel if they don't.
However, despite years of concern over CHBDC's wastewater plants, and with legal action encouraged by some members of the community, it was not until 2016 that a prosecution was brought forward on the CHBDC.
HBRC external relations manager Liz Lambert said throughout this process, they had resisted taking action against CHBDC in favour of attempting to find a solution to the breaches of the wastewater consents.
"What everyone wants is a good outcome for the community and the environment, and energy is better spent solving the problem rather than simply laying charges.
Council chairman Rex Graham said despite criticism, the council was "very focused" on working with other councils to find the best solution.
"Sometimes it's a fairly difficult path to tread because we're a regulator.
"Having said that, we're also the holders of the best science in most of these areas in Hawke's Bay. As a council we're very conscious that we should be using our people, our very talented science people, for the use of the region."
Working together means the two councils have tread a complicated path while trying to find a solution for the treatment plants.
Ahead of new standards coming into force in October 2014, the council bought land to be used as a land-based disposal field to help CHBDC with its sewage plant upgrades. The CHB council had chosen instead to use a floating wetland treatment model with continued discharges to the rivers.
Mr Graham said they had not been "keen" on the other council taking this path.
"We proposed that they do a land based process, and in fact we purchased land for them to do that. But they decided for whatever reason not to proceed with that and they went down the track that they've gone down.
"So they proceeded down this track without consultation from the regional council and ... we have now got into trouble that we're in."
Warnings about the plant's effectiveness were raised back in 2014 by HBRC's group manager resource management Iain Maxwell, who said CHB council needed "a clear plan" on how it would modify the plant to meet the stricter new standards.
He said at that time, while many would have liked to see a full prosecution against CHB, it was too early to make that call.
"[I] was more interested in seeing a positive outcome and meeting the new standards and taking court action against them would not achieve that."
In early January 2015 abatement notices were served, requiring the CHBDC to improve the quality of the Waipukurau and Waipawa treatment plant's discharge. With signs of improvement later that year, HBRC were said to be happy with the progress being made.
But then in November 2016 three charges were laid against the district council for breaching its consent conditions in relation to discharges of contaminants from the treatment plants.
At the time, it was said this prosecution would ensure "consistency" from the regulatory body, who just weeks earlier had laid charges for breaching consent conditions against the Hastings District Council.
The HDC charges were laid in regard to the Havelock North water contamination of that year. By this stage there had been ongoing concerns about the CHB plants from the community for over a decade.
However, by March two of the CHB charges were withdrawn. The CHB council plead guilty, and in July was convicted on the remaining charge, relating to the discharge of E. coli at Waipawa in excess of the five allowed exceedences.
In the end, the prosecution was estimated to have cost the CHB council about $130,000 in lawyer and expert witness fees - on top of $100,000 of work to be completed as per an enforcement order issued by the Environment Court.
Once again, it was decided a better way forward would be to find an action that would better benefit the small, rural community. Before sentencing it was agreed rather than HBRC seeking the imposition of a fine, ratepayer funds would be better spent on commissioning an independent technical review of the wastewater plant.
The total cost of this review and any subsequent actions was capped at $100,000, to be sourced from the existing wastewater renewal budget, and presented to HBRC this month.
Mr Graham said their relationship with the new CHBDC council was "outstandingly good and we are moving along that track, despite the fact we've had to do some prosecutions".
"We need to put it behind us and work together to find the best solution for CHB."