Brian Rudman: Oh to be a consultant with all that precious time to waste

COMMENT

In my next incarnation, I think I'll come back as a consultant. They have such a sweet life. And I'm not even talking the fees they charge and the restaurants they have to lunch in.

It's just that I get only half a day and 700 words to solve Auckland's problems. They, on the other hand, get months to cogitate on an issue, and reams of paper on which to regurgitate their solutions. And what solutions they get away with.

This little outburst has been stirred by the Boston Consulting Group's latest report, "An action plan to deliver improved stormwater outcomes", prepared for the now defunct Infrastructure Auckland of blessed memory, and the Auckland Regional Council.

Now, if I presented my masters with an "action plan", they would expect it to contain, surprise, surprise, a plan of action. But not the men from Boston.

Their action plan is to call for an eight-year "cuppa break", during which time the region would try to draw up the aforementioned co-ordinated action plan.

They estimated this planning process would cost between $15 million and $30 million, no doubt facilitated, to use the jargon, by an army of consultants from you know who.

Reading through the document, I'm not sure they've come up with anything new. We all know that growth and urbanisation in Auckland is increasing the volume of stormwater run-off, and that that is leading to more contaminants and other sediments running into our streams and harbours, thus causing increased erosion and pollution.

It's hardly news, either, that despite this, local authorities are not budgeting sufficient funds to solve the water quality issues that will arise over the next 20 years.

The consultants argue there's a lack of leadership at a regional level and that local authorities are handling the problems in different ways, sometimes acting at cross-purposes when one or more are dealing with the same stretch of water or harbour frontage.

The authors have a stab at a solution themselves, suggesting that the current focus on treatment, through filtration, ponds and riparian planting, has downplayed the benefits of preventing contamination at source. No doubt they have a point.

But what amazes me is that neither this report, or another one delivered to Infrastructure Auckland in its dying days, from PricewaterhouseCoopers, take into consideration the $800 million super tunnel solution being developed by Watercare Services, the region's main wastewater operator.

The PWC solution to Auckland's stormwater problem comes with an eye-watering $11.2 billion price tag. Amazed Watercare officials tell me that neither PWC nor Boston bothered to consult them, the regional experts, before penning their reports. Watercare reckons its super tunnel could be completed within 10 years, not much longer than the time Boston Group has set aside for its solution-finding gabfest.

The super tunnel first surfaced in Watercare's 2003 asset management plan. Auckland city's Metrowater and regional council officials have been working with Watercare on a "pre-feasibility study".

The super tunnel would be a huge cavern, stretching like a question mark under old Auckland, from the city west under Pt Chevalier then south to Onehunga.

Linked to existing and new reticulation systems, it would take the increased volumes of wastewater expected from urban intensification and would also handle the first flush of stormwater. This first flush, coming mainly off roadways, carries the highest concentrations of heavy metals and other traffic-related toxins which at present are spewing out on to beaches and streams.

When the storm had abated, the water from the tunnel would then be processed through the Mangere water treatment plant.

Early studies show it is technically feasible. The $800 million cost, at this stage, is an estimate. The new Hobson Bay tunnel is also being built at three times normal capacity to cope with storm spikes.

Of course, as the Boston consultants say, we can always do better. But I would have thought the last thing we need is to spend $30 million and waste eight years, arguing what "better" means.

As for PWC's $11 billion proposal, what planet are they on?

It makes you wonder how many more consultants' reports are still to pop out of Infrastructure Auckland's coffin before it, and its credit card, are buried for good.

Won't the consultant industry be awailing on that glorious day.