Reticulation issues to consider

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

Opinion

The first meeting at the Patutahi Hall regarding Patutahi reticulation was on October 16, 2013, the result of the Ministry of Public Health being directed by the Government to implement reticulated, treated, water supplies for small rural communities.

Pita Paul from Te Puna Waiora Public Health Unit presented what is known as the TAP scheme, which involved an 85 percent subsidy towards the capital cost and 15 percent local share.

The options presented were connecting to the GDC town supply system; using Dave Hawea’s Te Whanau a Kai Trust’s Waituhi supply which was for a small scheme based on a river supply pumped to tanks; using existing farm bores; or a new community bore.

The general consensus from locals was that a council supply or the Waituhi scheme were the more likely options.

I gave the GDC position on new reticulation proposals which was that it would control and operate any water supply using city water, not allow mixing of treated and untreated water, and require all houses to be connected. They would be responsible for connection costs from the boundary and pay water rates.

The council was not allowing any new connections outside already reticulated areas, so a major policy shift would be needed.

There was a mixed response from those present, who decided to form a small group to try and gauge local support. I have no record of the second meeting that Mr Paul mentioned (December 30 letter, The road to reticulating Patutahi).

So I was somewhat surprised at the council meeting on December 17 when a paper was presented proposing Patutahi reticulation with the Whanau a Kai Trust paying the local share.

There is nothing wrong with this and on the face of it, it all seems fine and dandy. What I did at the council meeting was not oppose the proposal as reported in The Herald but point out to fellow councillors, who seemed to have very little knowledge of the issues surrounding extending water to unreticulated areas, some of the problems that could occur.

Firstly the city supply at Waingake is just that, paid for and maintained by the city connections. Manutuke township was reticulated at the time the pipeline was installed through an agreement between the City and Cook County.

The Waingake supply, as everyone knows, is not endless — water restrictions are sometimes needed.

Wainui, with some 500 households, will be reticulated sooner or later.

As the city expands, more connections will be added. The industrial areas are reliant on the city supply. At the council meeting we were told of four possible new post-harvest facilities that will all require city water.

The staff response to the issue of availability was imposing a “demand management strategy”. That is local government speak for installing water meters on every household connection, which industry already has.

My last comment was that we do not want to turn down some $500,000 of government money that could benefit Patutahi, but need to carefully consider the implications.

I also questioned Mr Hawea’s assertions that he represented all the Patutahi community. What has happened to his Waituhi scheme? Is that still happening or has it folded?

Early this new year I will ask the council to convene a meeting of Patutahi residents to talk through the issues and to make sure that a good majority do want reticulation, understand the costs involved, and realise that it is simply a top-up not a full, pressurised supply.

If the many issues can be resolved, especially availability, then I would of course support reticulation. But to simply jump in and support it without considering all the implications would be foolhardy.