Councils at a fork in the river
If you are brave enough to enter the Fox River, you’ll get a glimpse of the future. A recent flood ripped open a historic landfill, spewing its contents down river and along the coast.
That sparked the urgent cleanup of one of the country’s more picturesque areas, including conservation land, and a scrap about who should pay and put in the hard work. The tiny Westland District Council said the Government should step in, while its national counterpart felt the burden should remain with the
local authority that owned the landfill.
The skirmish has been resolved, somewhat, with the Government chipping in more money and taking over the operation. But it provides an insight into a wider issue beyond the Fox catchment.
Central Government is working on its plans to combat the onslaught of climate change, but local authorities are more directly in the path of its many potential consequences. And they have fewer means and fewer options to help them cope.
Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities the length of New Zealand. Weather events could impact on vital infrastructure, including landfills, and plant treating waste and drinking water. Some may need to be relocated. This all requires tricky risk assessment and great resource, for which many councils have little political capital and ratepayer funds.
Many of those councils already face population decline and a shrinking ratepayer base.
The Productivity Commission has released a rather prescient draft report that highlights the risks. But some of its recommendations will be uncomfortable reading, especially for those who like their spot in smaller, isolated communities, well away from the gaze and grabby hands of politicians.
The commission sees sense in establishing a national entity or agency to help councils with policy, risk assessment and legal protection, especially if ratepayers are upset at the retreat from certain areas and the devaluing of a crucial asset. There’s sense in that proposal. And also in the idea of potentially freeing up councils to find more innovative ways to build a fighting fund, which might include taking a share of the capital gain made by a few on the back of new infrastructure paid by the many. But the picture becomes as murky as the Fox in flood when one starts pondering the possible impact on regional democratic institutions.
The commission supports the Government’s review of national water treatment and use in the context of climate change. It could mean greater national involvement in regional assets, including where they are built and who pays.
Similarly, it sees a bigger role for NZTA in building and maintaining local roads and bridges, not just on state highways. That means councils who fought valiantly against amalgamation a few years ago might see a virtual national takeover of vital infrastructure that defines their core business. And the washing away of their traditional regional power and influence.