Brent Barrett's Home Planet: Beware Three Waters Reform fine print

Transferring control of our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it raises many questions. Photo / 123rf

OPINION:

Life needs water. So when we see proposed changes to local water services, we take notice.

Thanks to endless TV adverts, you may already be aware of the Government proposal to change how local water services are controlled and managed throughout Aotearoa. Dubbed the Three Waters Reform, it covers all three parts of our water network: drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.

The promise is better water services at lower cost. Which sounds great, but it's worth checking the fine print.

Lower cost would be enabled by more borrowing. Money in the hand, and years to pay it back. This would fund improvements in the pipes, pumps and treatment plants we rely on to keep water flowing to and from our homes and businesses every day.

This increased borrowing would be enabled by transferring assets and control to new agencies, getting around the rules capping local government debt. This transfer is where I've heard concerns from many locals. It may mean less local say in how our water services are managed. Less input into how service prices and levels are set, and who makes the big decisions.

If this goes ahead, it's a massive change. Palmy's network has a book value of more than $600 million, but is priceless in terms of the essential water services it provides. As things stand today, the city owns, funds and manages all parts of the water network. Taumata Arowai, the new government regulator, sets and enforces the standards.

Palmy's water network isn't without issues. First up is how the planned $500 million upgrade to our wastewater treatment plant is paid for. Another is how we best reduce our stormwater and wastewater impacts on the health of our urban streams and rivers.

These issues are no surprise. Local funding is too tight, with only rates available to keep water services running and future-proofed. Over time, this narrow funding base has led to serious underinvestment in water networks across Aotearoa. But rather than fix the investment issue within the system, we face a proposal to hand control over to agencies serving big slices of the country. In our case, our assets and control would transfer to be part of a regional water service group stretching from Gisborne to Nelson.

Transferring control isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it raises many questions. For example, how will the price of water services be set? If a person can't pay their water bill, will their services be cut off? If someone asked to bottle and sell water from the Turitea Dam, do we get a say in that? What water conservation measures will be used? How can we be certain centralising our water networks isn't a step towards future privatisation?

In my view, water network decisions and these sorts of questions are answered locally, with government providing a strong regulatory framework. No change needed.

But we still have the issue of who pays for the $500 million upgrade, and ongoing underinvestment. This can be solved the way we solve other infrastructure funding gaps. For example local roads, where costs for agreed projects are shared 50-50 between local and central government. For priority projects, the central government share can go up to 90 per cent of the cost.

Adopting this simple, proven cost-sharing solution would lift investment now, ensure we keep more local community control over local water services, and keep things affordable at the same time. Too simple? Perhaps. But as things stand I'd like to see us give it a go, rather than requiring local communities to hand over assets and control today.

• Brent Barrett is an environmental advocate, city councillor and scientist. The views expressed here are his own.