From the mayor’s desk: No matter which Three Waters model - we will be paying a lot more

Stratford Mayor Neil Volzke says stormwater management, including assets such as Victoria Park's stormwater detention pond, should stay with local councils regardless of any proposed three water reforms. Photo / Ilona Hanne

Opinion:

For months now, we’ve been waiting with bated breath to learn what the National Party will propose as an alternative to Labour’s hugely unpopular reform model of the Three Waters.

Until now, National has simply said it will repeal Labour’s reforms, but with their “Local Water Done Well” policy statement released last week, we now have some clarity as to what this means. The pundits have been fairly accurate with their predictions.

National’s plan to scrap the four clumsy, bureaucratic mega entities and replace them with some options based on regional models will be welcomed by most in the local government sector. This will significantly improve the accountability concerns and reduce costs of the bureaucracy that are associated with the mega entity model, but will also kick to touch the much-touted benefits arising from economies of scale that would apply to the four-entity model. There is a trade-off here and a clear point of difference between National and Labour.

Some time back, the three Taranaki district councils did some preliminary research on a regional model for water services, incidentally it is something we could do now if we chose, and the early financial indications were that this model could work for us. Further investigation would be needed.

National’s policy will also go a long way towards addressing the major objections to the ownership and co-governance structure, which is where the Three Waters debate has largely centred.

National’s proposal will encourage councils to create Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) that will be owned and controlled by councils; that will please many. In addition to this, the governance structures will be determined by those same councils and will also involve mana whenua, but in a way that allows each region to be different and scope out a structure that is inclusive and best suits everyone in the region.

On each of these matters, National’s proposals broadly align with the views of councils across the region and on that basis, I’d give them a qualified pass mark, mainly because these issues are the contentious, political issues that have fallen out of the reforms debate and we now have an alternative for people to consider.

But let’s remind ourselves of the purpose of the reforms and the intended outcomes. The whole point of these reforms is to address the infrastructure funding deficit that councils have been struggling to cope with for decades. The overall funding need has been calculated as being between $130 and $180 billion to be spent over the next 30 years. These are eye-watering numbers and if we are to get anywhere near that level of investment, the cost of water services will increase markedly.

Borrowing to fund the additional investment in infrastructure is central to both National and Labour’s models, but understanding debt levels, affordability, sustainability, inter-generational equity and the like, becomes very complicated for the average person to understand. I can help with this. What all the financial terms mean collectively is that, we as consumers using water services will pay more, maybe a lot more!

Lastly, both National and Labour policy leaves stormwater in the mix of the Three Waters reforms. Personally, I am in the camp of those who believe it should be removed from the reforms.

Stormwater is much better aligned to roading services as the infrastructure relating to drains and roads is so intertwined. Managing stormwater that flows in drains, culverts and sometimes across the land is a totally different scenario than providing piped drinking water to a limited number of households connected to a network. The causative factors of floods are complex and how they are managed and prevented, would be much better served by someone other than any of the proposed water entities.

Rather ironically, until Cyclone Gabrielle hit Hawke’s Bay, stormwater was rarely mentioned in the Three Waters debate. If you think the $180 billion forecast to fix our pipes is a big number, then hold on to your wallet when they run the microscope over the stormwater infrastructure and identify what needs to be spent to fix this problem.