But that's kind of the point. There's unevenness across the country when it comes to how water is being looked after now and future-proofed. There's no consistency.
How much money is invested in protecting harbours from sewage discharges or upgrading deteriorating water infrastructure is up to individual councils.
It's not difficult to grasp the problem. All New Zealanders deserve the same water quality, whether they live in Whangārei, the Far North, Greymouth or Wellington.
All of the country's water infrastructure assets should be brought up to the same standards.
Allowing 67 councils to individually decide how much they invest in water infrastructure and how quickly they move to get things done will not deliver consistency.
The evidence is the situation we have at the moment. Some councils have done a reasonable job, some are laggards.
The four new public entities the Government is proposing to establish will seek to overcome the local unevenness.
Yes, some local democratic control will be taken away. And within the new regional entities, assets and income streams from one former council jurisdiction will likely end up subsidising investment in areas where it's most needed.
Neither of these outcomes can be denied, but what stands to be gained is consistent standards of water infrastructure investment over the whole country.
The goal is for all New Zealanders to experience similar water standards, both what comes out the taps and what flows in rivers, lakes, harbours and coastal seas. Photo / Michael Cunningham
Then there's the issue of the overall nationwide cost, estimated at between $120 and $185 billion over the next 30 years.
Suppose each local council was left to raise the money to fund necessary water infrastructure investment through rates and borrowing. In that case, some councils are disadvantaged.
They might be smaller than other councils, without the same population and asset base. They might not have big industry users paying large sums for water rights.
Some councils have more challenging geographies and climates that mean they have greater cost hurdles.
So it's not just wrong spending choices that see some councils' water infrastructure in a worse state.
And all councils are disadvantaged by their size when they go to credit markets to borrow. As a result, they face higher interest rates than what four regional water entities, and their newly created asset base, will be able to secure.
Looked at across the country, then, the cost of future water infrastructure investment will be reduced if the interest payments are less. Simply put, less of our money will be going to international bankers if there's greater centralisation.
This is a big part of the Government's rationale.
While I can admire Mai's defence of local democracy and the council's assets, I don't see her offering solutions to the problems the Three Waters Reforms are attempting to address.
One way I've come to understand the water reforms is to think of it as a constitutional issue. The goal is for all New Zealanders to experience similar water standards, both what comes out the taps and what flows in rivers, lakes, harbours and coastal seas.
The Three Waters Reforms take water away from the whims of local politics and cement good water management more firmly as a constitutional right.
The four new water entities must still be democratically accountable. Which they will be, to parliament, to councils who will have a role to play in governance, and to mana whenua, who will be most concerned with protecting our natural taonga. And, of course, all decisions can be critiqued through our independent media.
The Green Party has a proposal to strengthen the constitutional thrust of the water reforms. To protect public ownership of the four proposed regional entities, they want legislation that any future parliament has to vote 75 per cent in favour of any privatisation. A high bar that should ensure water remains in the public realm.
