How to make ‘Local Water Done Well’ more than a slogan

2026-03-03 - 16:07

Opinion: As councils move swiftly to establish new council-controlled water organisations under the Government’s Local Water Done Well reforms, what exactly do ‘local’ and ‘done well’ mean? Water reform is over a decade in the making and has always been complex, turbulent and contentious. Water – be it our rivers and lakes, drinking supplies, wastewater, stormwater, or allocations – is the backbone of our health and economy. Everyone needs it. Everyone cares. Recently, the country entered a fierce debate over the former government’s three waters proposal. That model may have been a bridge too far for many, but the status quo wasn’t working. Concerns about metering, charges and loss of local control ultimately led to three waters’ repeal. The current Government introduced Local Water Done Well, returning more control to councils but strengthening required standards and regulation. I have always supported reform, and so this is a step in the right direction. The reason for reform is confronting. Water NZ recently reported that nearly 400,000 New Zealanders still receive drinking water from council supplies lacking one or more “critical safety barriers”. This means higher risk to human health. In Kāeo the community endured a boil water notice for more than 10 years before the Water Services Authority, Taumata Arowai, stepped in and placed the supply under statutory management with the Far North District Council. In Wellington, some pipes, more than a century old, are failing at unprecedented rates and around 40 percent of treated drinking water is lost through leaks. At Moa Point, breakdowns have led to millions of litres of untreated sewage pouring into the sea, closing popular beaches and further damaging public trust. Numerous Christchurch harbours have also been impacted by sewage discharges. These examples are not about blaming individual councils. They are symptoms of a nationwide water infrastructure and funding problem that cannot be washed away as easily as unwanted sewage. We are living with the consequences of decades of underinvestment. The impact of aging pipes, outdated or ineffective treatment plants, and overburdened stormwater systems is hitting home, and the cost of doing better is enormous. Under the new model, independent boards will govern many of these water entities. They will set long-term strategies, approve major capital programmes, make funding and procurement decisions that reach decades into the future and deep into ratepayers’ pockets. Councils will remain shareholders on behalf of their communities, but they will no longer make daily or even many strategic water decisions. Yet much of what is happening sits below the public radar. The shift to council-controlled organisations is technical and complex. Most citizens, and many newly elected members, can be forgiven for struggling to explain what it is, and what it means for water services, rates or water charges. In short, though we gain professional governance, we lose some direct local political control. That may be wise, based on past performance, but nevertheless it’s a big change for local communities. There are standards to be met, and there will be bigger penalties for councils that do not meet them. Over the past six years many planners, lawyers, and directors have been looking at this in detail. Water reform is one of the biggest businesses in town. Councils that opted to retain ‘services in-house’, and those that have opted to work with neighbours required approval from the Department of Internal Affairs, which came with conditions. These include managing consumer affordability and debt levels and lifting compliance with drinking and wastewater standards. Taumata Arowai (The Water Services Authority) must ensure water quality standards are met, and the Commerce Commission will oversee economic regulation to ensure wise and efficient investment. These safeguards matter. They are designed to prevent both underinvestment and overcharging. However, better local water ‘done well’ does not come cheap. Huge investment is required. The numbers are eye watering. Councils’ Water Service Management Plans outline hundreds of millions of dollars required to meet legislative standards and growth demands. Local Government Minister Simon Watts recently reported that collectively councils will invest nearly $9 billion into water infrastructure over the next 10 years. This will be met by charges over time but also significant debt levels. Lobby groups and key organisations have noticed. Federated Farmers worry about affordability and rural impact. Taxpayers’ Union advocates warn of “water taxes” and ballooning debt. Meanwhile, Infrastructure NZ and Water NZ argue that significant investment is unavoidable if we want safe, resilient systems. Many ratepayers will be unaware of this. Since the October local elections, there has been scant public commentary from many mayors and councillors about the establishment of these new entities. Is it the calm before the storm? Or reluctance to be closely associated with inevitable price increases? The fact is that the cost to users will rise. Some communities face steep increases over the next decade, with Water Services Plans projecting cumulative rises of 30 percent to more than 110 percent for fast-growing councils. For true transparency, this must be part of early conversations with ratepayers. Meters will be required in communities that don’t already have them. That has sparked debate before and will again. A move towards user pays “volumetric charging” will shift some of the burden from those who pay more currently based on the ratable value of their property to lower value homes with more occupants using more daily water. What does “local” mean if independent boards, albeit professional ones, make many of the big decisions? And, what does “done well” look like? It surely must mean ending long-term boil water notices. It must mean bringing all water supplies up to full compliance with safety standards. It must mean preventing sewage overflows into harbours and beaches requiring greater resilience to withstand weather or seismic events. It must mean robust asset management, regular maintenance, timely renewals and transparent planning. It must mean confronting the true cost of water infrastructure rather than deferring it to future generations. And it must mean the best and most cost-effective long-term technologies and solutions. Finally “local” must mean honest conversations with communities and to find a solid way for them to have a voice. The consequences of water reform will shape our communities for decades. Now is the time for communities and elected members to ask questions. What will change? What will it cost? How will the council-controlled organisations communicate with us? Are we using the best water technologies? Are we partnering to keep costs as low as possible? If Local Water Done Well is to be more than a slogan, it will require transparency, courage and an honest conversation with the public about cost, control and responsibility. Water is too important for anything less.