Councils around the country are pondering how to deal with their water obligations. They are choosing between each council going it alone within councils, getting together to create water companies or creating their own water companies.
However they are structured, councils do not have a good track record in delivering water and disposing of wastewater, even with large increases in ratepayer money.
Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) dealing directly with its own wastewater seems to be delivering E. coli into the Shotover.
The Dunedin City Council (again alone) has failed to achieve clean water in the Kaikorai Stream.
Wellington City Council, combining with others to form a group, shows forming one company to provide services to various councils can have all the downsides of the individual councils and the added issue that no-one is apparently responsibility for any failings.
Currently the government provides compulsory guidelines around water quality.
Regional councils spend millions on forming local plans around these guidelines and producing requirements for territorial authorities to carry out.
Regional councils then create consents with various conditions around the activities proposed by territorial authorities. This process can take many years and cost millions.
If the conditions are breached, the regional councils can take the territorial authority to court, which can result in it being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The effect of this inter-council activity is ratepayers’ money is spent by regional councils to sue territorial authorities where the fine will be paid by the same ratepayers through a different council.
While this money goes between councils and territorial authorities, water quality degradation is allowed to continue.
The approach to private consent holders appears more rigorous, suggesting a sympathy with territorial authorities’ inability to look after the water compared with private consent holders.
We also have the Water Services Authority whose job is to ensure all communities have access to safe and reliable drinking water every day.
This authority has an oversight role in ‘‘the environmental performance of public drinking water, wastewater and stormwater networks’’.
In a recent report from the Otago Regional Council (to the regional leadership committee, not to councillors oddly enough) showed an increase in significant non-compliance grades last year.
The five Otago councils operate under 55 consents. Between them 21 significant non-compliance grades were given over the past year.
All of our Otago councils had at least one, with Clutha having 10.
So all this attention and millions of dollars spent is not leading to better water treatment plants.
Part of the problem may lie in a general attitude within councils that nothing that goes wrong is anyone’s fault, and if you are trying hard that is good enough.
For example, QLDC Mayor Glyn Lewers acknowledged that his council could have made a better job of communicating about the resort’s thorny issues.
But he went on to say he has seen over the past three years how hard staff and councillors work. They’re doing their best.
Councillors may not be being kept in the loop either.
QLDC refused to answer my questions about what councillors knew and when. It seems likely they were not being told in November the Queenstown airport was concerned about bird strike from the beleaguered Shotover plant.
Before Clutha District Council was fined $500,000, Mayor Bryan Cadogan expressed shock he had no idea of the severity of the problem.
It may be as simple as councils not having the expertise to build or monitor their water infrastructure.
Whatever the reasons there are too many cooks in the kitchen and frequently poor outcomes for us and the environment.
Instead of the hierarchy of the government and government water authority and regional councils and councils building the plants and everyone blaming everyone else, we could simplify the process.
The government could specify what it wants, and be in charge of the major above ground infrastructure to achieve its goals.
Councils could take charge of the water within its boundaries and look after local pipes.
A watchdog authority could check the infrastructure is delivering good drinking water and taking away wastewater. If there are failures within the territorial boundaries commissioners could be appointed to deal with water only. The same ratepayers would be charged for the water infrastructure by government in any case.
However, if the government has failed to provide the water infrastructure it is responsible for, any fines to be paid should be paid by the taxpayer not ratepayers.
Then we would not have the huge costs of each council and the regional council pointing fingers at each other, making rules for each other to follow at great expense and taking no responsibility for any failings.
• Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
