Lack of planning led to Kaitāia’s aquifer project budget blow-out and delays, review finds

Work gets under way in 2020 on a pipeline bringing bore water to Kaitāia's water treatment plant. Photo / Peter de Graaf, RNZ

By Peter de Graaf of RNZ

A report on a Kaitāia water project that took 14 years instead of five and cost millions of dollars more than expected has found a lack of planning was one of the key reasons for the project’s troubles.

In 2011, the Far North District Council decided to drill two bores into the Sweetwater aquifer north of Kaitāia to stop the town running out of water during its frequent summer droughts.

However, bore water only started flowing through the town’s taps early this year, prompting councillor Mate Radich to call for a judicial review.

Radich had also become frustrated by being unable to establish the project’s total cost.

In May this year, councillors voted to seek an internal review instead, given the high cost of a judicial review.

The report, presented at Thursday’s council meeting in Kaikohe, finally provided a definitive project cost of $18,016,070.

Of that, just $2.4 million was spent developing the initial bore site from 2011-17.

The bulk of the money, $14.9m, was spent on bore improvements and pipeline construction between 2020 and 2024.

A significant part of that, just under $2.5m, went on “access costs” including land purchase ($250,000) and easements/compensation payments to landowners ($1.63m).

Another $708,000 was spent this year on a membrane bio-reactor treatment trial, when it became apparent Kaitāia’s existing treatment plant was unsuited to the silica-rich water from the aquifer.

The town’s water is usually drawn from the drought-sensitive Awanui River.

The money came from rates and reserves ($3.3m), loans ($11.7m) and external grants ($3m, mostly from the Provincial Growth Fund).

The report found the key reason for the delays was “the absence of a single, over-arching project plan”.

The project lacked a proper business case, which would have identified all the components required, provided an overview of the expected cost and delivery timeframe, and established key milestones for reporting and decision making.

Failing to engage early with affected property owners and mana whenua forced redesigns and cost time, while the use of external project managers increased the expense.

The report also found delays resulted from inadequate asset management and the “stop-start effect” caused by staff turnover.

-RNZ