Murky waters

Taking a deep dive into the government’s 3 Waters reform requires a swim through some very murky water indeed.  All the public outrage seems to be focussed on asset grabbing and giving governance to Iwi but both of these arguments are actually red herrings in the muddy pond.

To fully understand the call for national reform it is sensible to have a clear, unemotive look at our own local infrastructure as it is indictive of a good portion of New Zealand’s service network.

A check of local history books show that Featherston’s first water supply became functional in 1906 following a crown grant of land for a reservoir.  The town’s original sewerage system dates from the 1920’s and that is much the same time line for many towns throughout New Zealand.  

Of course, there have been upgrades and expansion of services since then, however most invoked hand wringing over affordability and the impacts on rates.  Today’s woes are not new.

Back in 1958 we can read in ‘Featherston the First 150 Years’ that Featherston’s water supply was inadequate, the town’s sewerage system was failing badly and the additional rates income from new residents did not match the increase in demand for public services.  The rates rise adopted was insufficient to cover the cost of upgrading the town’s infrastructure.  Sound familiar?

So, what we have now is a country with aging infrastructure and where the cost of replacement has far outstripped the rates people were prepared to pay.  Add into this the added pressure of successive government’s growth strategies that have seen our national population increase by 2 million since 1980 plus much higher environmental standards to be met.  Is it any wonder that our hard services are haemorrhaging?

This is not new.  Most councils have been challenging the government to stump up with assistance for years so the current trend of accusing former councils of neglect is a cop out.  It is like buying an old house then blaming the former owner because it is old.

South Wairarapa for instance had a cyclical renewal programme of approximately one km of pipe per year as well as general repairs and maintenance needed on the systems.  The engineers would have loved to have done more but it was what the community could afford.  As the cost of construction has soared though, the work able to be done for the rates dollar has plummeted.  

So why can’t the government borrow the money and just subsidise the infrastructure investment for individual councils?  Well, it could but don’t forget billions will be needed here and that borrowing will then sit fairly on the government’s balance sheet.  

That probably doesn’t have much appeal given the current fiscal state. Also, government assistance usually comes with a need for a local share as well.  That will need to be funded by rates.  Councillors that support high rate increases usually end up voted out and so we have the same old merry-go-round.  

By forming the proposed water entities, the government will create organisations, large enough to have the borrowing power needed to fund the large investments but removed from the circus that election cycles bring.  It sounds good on paper but the devil is in the detail.

Is some form of reform of water services needed?  Yes, and it’s hard to argue otherwise.

Is the government’s proposed model the best way?  Probably not although a similar setup has been made to work in Scotland.  Will it work for us?  Only time will tell.  

Adrienne Staples