Letters to the editor: Three Waters reform a cost saver? You're dreaming

A reader doubts reforms will lead to cost savings in Three Waters. Photo / Getty Images

If anyone wishes to believe that the Government's proposed Three Waters Reforms are going to cost ratepayers less, rather than more, they should ask themselves whenever have matters raised by a government cost us taxpayers or ratepayers less?

How can a stated expenditure of about $150 billion, over 30 years, and an increase in staff result in ratepayers paying less? As an old TV ad says: you've got to be dreaming mate.

Due mainly to rapid growth Tauranga does have some infrastructure issues, but overall I believe we have a superb Three Waters system and accordingly there is little or no benefit in giving these assets away and then also being expected to retain the debt in building these assets.

I am disappointed that, unlike some other councils, our commissioners are still saying that they require more information, before reaching a decision, whereas other councils have made decisions and I also note that at least one council has resigned from Local Government NZ due to LGNZ involvement going back over 15 months.

I believe that the ratepayers will revolt should this matter be forced upon us and I would certainly support a binding referendum on the topic.

Mike Baker
Bethlehem

No change needed

There is no sensible reason to establish a multibillion-dollar Three Waters authority.

If you take time to research water control incidents since Napier in 2016, you will find that local councils throughout our country have come a long way in identifying any problems smartly, and repairs have followed quickly and effectively.

Weather of every kind affects the actions of every council. Wet, dry, parched landscapes, storms and high wind speeds, stormwater flooding of homes, and wastewater threatening human health.

Councils must plan and respond urgently.

Experienced loyal and local contractors take the brief and get on with the job, using local knowledge, to repair damage and reinstate utilities.

If you're talking about drinking water quality, we have some of the best in the world.

Technically speaking our water is filtered with some of the most proven, quality products available and monitored by dedicated, quality teams, often some of the most job-passionate workers you could meet.

Nothing needs to change.

I challenge all New Zealanders to protest against Three Waters.

Russell McKenzie
Pāpāmoa

Not sustainable?

I listened to the council discussion on Monday on Three Waters and a remark about the existing water infrastructure model not being sustainable stood out.

Where did this come from?

Did the commissioners and Tauranga Council know this during the LTP debate only six months ago?

I do not recall it being mentioned then.

Looking at the TCC's Three Waters expenditure data, the majority of the spend over the next 10 years is on growth, not replacing a broken model.

Philip Brown
Pāpāmoa

Huge cost, huge loss

I keep hearing/reading about the proposed reform and, in my opinion, there has been a lack of transparency and misleading information regarding the benefits.

I note that one of the supposed benefits is that it takes the rates burden away from the ratepayer and places it firmly on the taxpayer.

Has it escaped everyone's attention that the ratepayer and taxpayer are the same person, so no benefit there?

No doubt there will be increased employment within the Government to cope with the additional management of this resource, and less for the local councils involved.

No doubt Central Government has all the necessary expertise available to cope, or are they assuming the local councils will be willing to share their expertise and workforce to prop up the Government employees who will have to work in the areas involved both locally and hands-on.

Presumably, these people will all have the degrees to suit this area of expertise let alone the hands-on experience.

The way I see it is that there will be a huge cost to the taxpayer to set this up and a huge loss to the ratepayer.

Dave Carreyett
Pyes Pa

The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:

• Letters should not exceed 200 words.

• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.

• If possible, please email.

• No noms de plume.

• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.

• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.

• Local letter writers given preference.

• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.

• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.

• The Editor's decision on publication is final. No correspondence will be entered into.

Email editor@bayofplentytimes.co.nz