Auckland has plenty of water and wastewater problems. Fixing them is going to cost plenty. MATHEW DEARNALEY reports on how it might be managed.
Typhoid was rife in Auckland in the late 19th century, the filthy legacy of raw sewage dumped in bays and streams along the once-sparkling Waitemata Harbour.
By 1900, the region's 19 local councils were running "nightsoil" collection carts - but often these were simply emptied over the boundary in neighbouring boroughs.
Sewage was later pumped to Okahu Pt, where it was held in storage tanks now housing Kelly Tarlton's Underwater World, and flushed into the harbour at high tide.
Subsequent investment in sanitary infrastructure such as the Mangere sewage treatment works has brought the eradication of most infectious diseases.
But much of the region's 6400km sewerage network is now crumbling with age.
Aucklanders will have to pay $250 million in each of the next four years on projects to upgrade waterworks, sewage treatment and stormwater collections systems. The total cost could rise to almost $5 billion by 2020.
We may be beyond flinging muck into our neighbours' backyards, but this daunting cost of cleaning up after ourselves threatens to put a huge strain on households and industries, some of which are already rebelling against user charges.
Auckland has the country's highest water charges, including disposal. These are likely to double to an average of $1200 a household in the next five years.
The region's beaches and waterways are fouled by more than 1000 overflows of sewage each year. But planners fear people don't realise what it will cost to fix this.
What are the plans for coping?
Six of the region's councils - all except Franklin - are joining forces to find ways of restructuring water, wastewater and stormwater services which may reduce the capital cost of delivering the goods.
The review is already proving controversial, with opponents from the Water Pressure Group claiming none of three short-listed options can be supported by people unsettled by user-charges and commercialised models for water services.
Review steering committee leaders say they have received a clear message that water assets must stay in public ownership. But franchising services to private operators while retaining ownership has not been ruled out.
Steering committee deputy chairwoman Theresa Stratton, of Waitakere City, believes little support exists for the franchising model by which Papakura District Council has leased its water and wastewater assets to a big overseas water consortium for 30 years.
How are water services provided to Aucklanders?
Watercare Services, which is 100 per cent publicly owned through the six local councils involved in the review, collects water in dams in the Waitakere and Hunua ranges before treating it and supplying it to each council. Supply will be boosted next year by a pipeline to pump Waikato River water over the Bombay Hills.
The organisation also treats wastewater from Auckland, Waitakere, Manukau and Papakura at the 41-year-old Mangere sewage plant, which it is upgrading.
North Shore City, which buys its water from Watercare, has its own large Rosedale wastewater treatment plant. Rodney, Papakura and Manukau also have their own or additional treatment facilities.
Auckland City, with a 41.6 per cent share, and Manukau (25.1 per cent) are Watercare's largest owners.
Papakura's water and waste services are managed by the Anglo-French consortium United Water International. Metrowater, a local authority trading enterprise (Late), runs those services for its Auckland City Council owner. The other councils run their own operations, either as departments or stand-alone businesses. All councils manage their own stormwater collection.
Their collective assets, including Watercare's, total more than $3 billion.
Why are the councils reviewing their water services?
A recent law change required all councils to produce asset management plans, and to ensure they raised enough money for future infrastructure needs by allowing for the depreciation of existing assets in their budgets. Using these plans, Auckland councils have found that they will collectively have to spend $4.7 billion for new water infrastructure in the next 17 years, unless they find new ways of doing things.
They are all forecasting price rises of between five per cent and 21 per cent for each of the next five to 10 years and beyond.
The committee suggests councils have neglected to use "funding mechanisms" - a euphemism for more direct user-charges - to manage demand and supply.
Doesn't this mean forced conservation? What is being done now to encourage people to save water?
All Aucklanders are metered for water use but only Auckland City's Metrowater, as a Late, and United Water in Papakura are allowed to charge for wastewater disposal independently of property rates.
Metrowater attributes an 0.5 per cent reduction in water use last year, compared with a 3.8 per cent population rise, to its user charges, and says others should follow its lead.
The Water Pressure Group's Jim Gladwin says this is causing considerable hardship to low-income families.
He says Aucklanders were already conserving water after the 1994 drought, and that education rather than punitive charges should be used to alter people's behaviour, as in Christchurch.
Aucklanders use less water per head than any other New Zealanders, including Christchurch people, whose average daily consumption is 250 litres compared with 190 litres in the Queen City.
What will be some of Auckland's main capital costs?
The biggest single call on our money is Watercare's Mangere plant, which is more than halfway through a $524 million upgrade to improve its outflow into the Manukau Harbour and restore the once-ravaged coastline.
A further $155 million is being spent on the Waikato River pipeline, which will boost supplies by about 15 per cent after heavy treatment of the polluted river water.
North Shore residents, who are particularly concerned about pollution of their beaches, face an outlay of $70 million to $150 million to upgrade their treatment plant - depending on what standards are set by the Auckland Regional Council.
But council member and water spokesman Joel Cayford says the existing sea outfall from the plant contributes very little to pollution compared with stormwater and wastewater leaks from decaying pipes.
He expects the cost of repairing these to exceed $300 million, giving a ratio which, if translated to the Auckland isthmus, would suggest a bill of about $1.6 million for a similar pipe replacement project.
Metrowater is already committed to a $180 million pipe replacement programme over the next five years, but Dr Cayford suggests that will be only the entree.
Aside from the capital spending, what does it cost to operate the region's water networks and has the review team identified potential savings?
The total regional operating cost for 1999-2000 was $198 million, including depreciation.
Savings ranging from a modest $300,000 to $9.7 million a year have been identified by the review team, depending on which of the three shortlisted options is chosen.
What are the options?
* Option One: Improved status quo - leaves it to councils to decide how their existing operations are structured, but an independent regulator would be appointed to ensure they operate more efficiently.
Expected operating cost saving: $300,000.
* Option Two: Shared network - separate council-owned companies would be set up, one to own all the region's dams and water treatment plants and another to own all the water and wastewater pipes and sewage treatment plants.
Three more companies would be established, to compete with each other as retailers of water and sewage services.
It offers savings from competition but integration of stormwater services would prove move difficult.
Expected savings: $400,000 to $1.9 million. North Shore City Council is opposed to this option, which resembles the disastrous electricity reforms.
* Option Three: One provider jointly owned by all the councils, to be subjected to a heavier-handed independent regulator because of its monopoly.
Reduces overheads and offers economies of scale, but the choice of services offered would be limited. Dr Cayford believes a regional organisation would be ill-equipped to manage, and try to reduce, stormwater discharges, which he says is an inherently localised endeavour.
Expected savings: $8.2 million to $9.7 million.
How can you have your say about the water review?
If you haven't already clipped a coupon from your newspaper, call 0508-928-377 to ask for a form to say what you think. Send it to Freepost, Water Review, Private Bag 92516, Auckland, by March 21. Or call the Auckland Water Pressure Group on (09) 828-4517 for a "people's option" postcard.
Cool clear water comes with a no-option price
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.