Government funds to improve water quality won’t come free
Iwas unaware when I wrote my column last week that days later the Government would be announcing a $761 million fund to assist local government to improve water supply services across the country.
There are no details as yet on how this fund is to be allocated but indications are that it will be partly on a population base and possibly partly on the area of each local body. In Waipa¯ ’s case, as we are about 1 per cent of the total population, we could be eligible for a grant of around $7 million for water supply upgrades, either capital or operating.
As usual, an offer of this magnitude does not come without conditions.
A requirement before accessing these funds is that Council enters into a memorandum of understanding with central government to enter into discussions around its wider waters reform programme.
These discussions would cover the cumulative effect of increasing capital costs, infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, enhanced standards and environmental challenges including climate change.
Government intends to roll out its reform process over the next three years in three tranches of work.
The first tranche is the $761 million stimulus package. An agreement to enter into these discussions will not commit Council to continue in the reform programme.
If Council then chooses to opt out of the review there will be no further funding assistance from the government and the community will be responsible for meeting the new public health and environmental standards.
As with all reform proposals, the devil is in the detail.
As yet, that detail has not been determined, but government has made a commitment to work with local government on these reforms.
It is, however, critical that Council continues to be involved in the debate in order to fully evaluate the pros and cons of the review and consult with the community.
The proposed three waters review has the potential to fundamentally change the works and services undertaken by Local Government in a way not seen since the reforms of 1989.
One difficulty perceived by Local Government is that the removal of the three waters will impact on a lot of other activities and particularly the ability for communities to plan for their future growth which is inextricably linked to the provision of these services.
New Zealand is already one of the most centralised democracies in the world.
The proposal to potentially incorporate these services into five multi-regional bodies across the country will further remove decision-making from local communities.
This may be seen as an advantage on a purely costeffective basis, particularly when health and environmental standards are continually increasing.
Local Government across New Zealand acknowledges that standards need to be improved and that there has, in some locations, been an underinvestment in core infrastructure. This is not only in the smaller council areas but also in our main centres.
From a personal perspective, my first job after leaving school was as a Health Inspector in Auckland in the early 1970s when many beaches had to be closed due to sewage contamination after every heavy rainfall event. Here we are over 40 years later and still the problem persists.
The main reason for this under-investment is the challenge in funding these significant capital projects via rates.
There is always a tension between the optimum engineering solution and the desire to keep rates as low as possible — compromises are always made based on the demands from the community.
Whatever happens during this review process I believe that we can all anticipate increasing costs because standards are also increasing and risks associated with climate change are already apparent.