Claims that hold no water

The rather hyped search for soft water is increasingly looking like a fruitless exercise, more costly folly than something providing a real return for ratepayers.

That surely is the only conclusion that can be drawn from Monday's story in which councillor Rob Vinsen expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of the scheme. Comparisons in water softness from 2009 to 2011 show little positive impact for ratepayers given the overall and ongoing cost of the scheme.

Bringing soft water to the city was a cause championed by former mayor Michael Laws - who, when he stepped down as mayor, listed it as among his achievements during his six-year term in office. While the intention was no doubt honorable, the reality is that his proclamation of success was surely premature.

This is borne out by the data revealed to the infrastructure and property committee, which showed varying impact across different suburbs, from barely discernable to significant but still well below the threshhold for consideration as soft water. Yet still ratepayers are facing a $47 annual levy to fund the cost of the scheme.

In April last year it was revealed the project's total cost had reached more than $3.2 million, which included two bores and a treatment plant.

The project's stated aim was simple enough: to soften our city's water, to ratepayers' benefit, Mr Laws said, of $230 a year - far more than the levy, and justification surely to proceed?

Now it seems the returns are not what was promised. Relative softness, as defined by the mineral content, has showed limited variation from the same period two years previous and is not what it was claimed would be achieved.

Perhaps the data used to justify the programme was flawed; maybe softening water is not as simple as first thought. Either way, ratepayers struggling to pay their bills and facing an uncertain future as the city tries to cover its debt burden, cover the costs of earthquake-strengthening buildings and various other projects, will have reason to feel aggrieved at the lack of result.

Their appliances are still being damaged, clothes ruined and as feedback from Monday's story shows, while a few in selected areas have noticed some change, it is inconsistent and nowhere near what was expected, promised and is being paid for.

Infrastructure manager Julian Rewiti's suggestion the project is another victim of the Christchurch quake doesn't wash. Maybe the new bores are running at reduced capacity and that and daily fluctuations explain the poor results. Surely samples were collected on peak and low-use days to provide an average?

However, it still appears that a project that promised much has delivered little, and the ratepayer is left carrying the can for what appears to be poor decision-making.