Opinion
FARMERS WEEKLY – farmersweekly.co.nz – April 4, 2022
25
Water reforms a viable solution Pulpit
Brian Hanna
A
FTER observing the debate on Three Waters Reform for many months now, I feel compelled to try and provide some balance to this discussion. I have been the independent chair of the Three Waters Steering group, which has been operating as a partnership between central and local government for the past 18 months. This reform discussion has been going on for many, many years now, with a series of governments, both red and blue, struggling to come up with viable solutions. It is important to point out that these reforms are targeted at reticulated networks, owned by councils, not individual self-supplying households that predominate in rural areas. One of the ironies of the current debate is that all political parties, and most councils, agree on one thing – the current status quo must change. It will not be able to deliver the significant investment required over the next 30-plus years to fix an ever-growing problem of significant underinvestment in New Zealand’s three waters: drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. With increasing regulatory oversight over standards for public health and safety for drinking water, and environmental standards for wastewater and stormwater discharges, these challenges only get greater. I believe it is important to
UNFIT: Brian Hanna says that NZ’s three waters infrastructure is in a dire state that needs to be addressed sooner than later.
to rural and provincial councils and these changes will go some way to addressing these concerns. And there is also a recommendation for a water ombudsman role to be established, to ensure there is an independent place for individual consumers to go to if they need issues resolved. Whether this government’s plan is what eventuates or not, only time will tell but the failings in the current system across the country needs to be addressed.
The biggest losers if reform does not proceed are likely to be smaller rural communities in NZ who will face huge, eye watering costs to upgrade infrastructure networks over the foreseeable future. Those failings make sobering reading for a developed country and the cost of rectifying these just keeps growing. The latest Ministry of Health report and Water NZ survey shows that there is large wastage in drinking water – across the country 21% of our treated water drips away through leaks before it gets to our taps.
The largest recorded loss was 55%. And that figure is getting worse, not better, increasing by 44% since 2014. This loss is more than the water supplies of Hamilton, Rotorua, Dunedin and Christchurch combined, every day. Most of that leakage is down to underground pipes that are at the end of their life. When it comes to wastewater, the situation is just as dire. The same Water NZ report claims that there were more than 2000 dry weather sewerage overflows across the country in the year the report covered. That equates to over five events a day. There are also many plants that have expired consents or operate outside their consent conditions. As a farmer, I find this unacceptable, given the huge investment farmers are making to improve water quality, working hard to reduce their impact on the environment overall, and the scrutiny that is placed on farming today. What has concerned me has been some of the misinformation that has been fed to communities by a small number of mayors and councillors, when the research clearly shows their communities will benefit from the reforms. I do question their motives and whose interests they are representing. When you talk to the chief
executives of many rural and provincial councils, you get a different view. Many are in favour of reform, as they are the ones charged with delivering water services efficiently and cost effectively and see in front of them a huge challenge that they know in many cases will be unaffordable. If these reforms don’t go ahead in whatever form, it will be a huge lost opportunity and the challenge will only grow. The biggest losers if reform does not proceed are likely to be smaller rural communities in NZ who will face huge, eye watering costs to upgrade infrastructure networks over the foreseeable future. As a resident in rural NZ, I would be asking my council some searching questions such as, “If you are anti the reforms, and they don’t proceed, how are you planning to fund the upgrades that will be required to meet the new drinking water quality, and environmental discharge standards of the future?” “What modelling and planning have you done to illustrate to me we are better off on our own?” Remember, this whole reform is based on the need to invest significantly in water infrastructure to provide for public and environmental health. There is much to be done – how can it be done in a way that is affordable for New Zealanders wherever they live? One thing appears certain, rural and provincial councils will struggle to afford to do this work on their own.
Who am I? Brian Hanna was appointed independent chair of the Central/Local Government Steering Group in June 2020, which was charged at critically analysing the proposed reforms and providing advice to government. He is a farmer/businessman living in King Country and was an elected member on Waitomo District Council for 15 years, nine of these as mayor. He also represented rural councils on the LGNZ board and is a board member on the new drinking water regulator, Taumata Arowai.
Your View Got a view on some aspect of farming you would like to get across? The Pulpit offers readers the chance to have their say. farmers.weekly@globalhq.co.nz Phone 06 323 1519
0105428
SERIOUS 265.02x70 INCINERATORS
Serious Incinerators - Pulpit page
• Heavy duty • Long lasting incinerators Attachment for leaf blower
Three sizes available. Options include:
Spark arrestor & ash guard
Scraper
Phone 021 047 9299 • www.irontreeproducts.co.nz
LK0109555©
The
refocus the debate on why reform is considered necessary. In my view, it is to create focused, specialised entities to create a long-term, well planned, targeted investment strategy for three waters infrastructure, free from political interference. Currently when we talk about Three Waters Reform, the conversation is generally about governance, co-governance, local control and local asset ownership, but very little focus on water loss or wastewater overflows, or treatment plant performance, or drinking water quality. These are significant issues that have not really been surfacing in the discussions at all. Earlier this year, to address the many concerns raised by councils, central government set up a working party, with nominations made to it from local government and iwi alike, to look at the areas of the reform proposal regarding governance, accountability and representation. I was part of this group, who after much debate, and stepping outside the terms of reference, produced 47 recommendations for changes to the reforms. I note these have been dismissed by reform opponents as “predictably disappointing” but welcomed by many in the sector as helpful to addressing the main areas of concern. Among the recommendations is addressing ownership with greater clarity around who actually owns the assets. By introducing a public shareholding that councils will hold proportionately on the community’s behalf. If accepted by the Government, this will give each council one share in the entities that will manage the three waters across NZ for every 50,000 people or part thereof. With that share or shares is recommended to come a power of veto should a path toward privatisation be embarked on in years to come, ensuring these assets remain in your ownership. There is also a recommendation for sub-regional representative groups to be formed, meaning if your council doesn’t get a seat at the top representation table, it should get a seat at the table of regional groupings that will make recommendations on investment prioritisation, growth plans, etc. and provide a “local voice” to each entity. This has been a major concern
