The bottom line is basically that it has recommended the need for reforms - among them the question of establishing new ownership "models" and volumetric charging.
Basically, privatising the delivery of water and charging people for how much of it they use.
Now it has to be made clear that among the districts examined Hawke's Bay was not one of them, but that doesn't mean a lot. We all know how these privatisation and asset things work ... if it's a rule for one then it's a rule for all.
In terms of production processes, water is already metered and ratepayers already pay a standard charge for water and wastewater, which works out to be about $10 a week - which is rather good value considering the sparkling quality of the aquifer fluids the Bay is blessed with.
Tinkering with the processes of supply would inevitably lead to having to pay more for water, because of the question that lives at the heart of "pilot studies" - can we create some extra income out of this?
I find it all rather unsettling and to a degree unfathomable, as it's not as if we have a shortage of the stuff.
If anything, most regions arguably have too much water.
Last week, as the storms rolled through, they'd have happily given the stuff away.
I'm with the Napier City Council on this one. In a letter to Finance Minister Bill English, the council declared that Water NZ was "clearly pushing an agenda to remove water and wastewater services from council control", and that any suggestion the city's urban water sector may become a target for reform would be "nonsense".
I'll drink to that.