3 Waters: Labour juggernaut pours cold water on council hopes

The Government is set to force through its Three Waters reforms, u-turning on a previous promise to make it voluntary for councils to join up to the amalgamation plan.

Councils complaining about having water management taken off them is a little like an All Black coach complaining about being sacked after losing every single World Cup match.

It's not as if they have been doing an exemplary job, albeit in challenging circumstances.

The popular rhetoric is that the catalyst for 3 Waters, which is proceeding after consultation with councils, was the 2016 Havelock North campylobacter outbreak.

Four people died.

In 2020, new research indicated that up to 8320 people were affected - well up on the 5500 figure that had been used, after a telephone survey.

However, the new study took into account up to 2230 affected people lived outside the area.

3 Waters means new entities will take over the management and maintenance of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. Photo / Paul Taylor

The outbreak remains a bitter pill for many to swallow, as no person or entity was held responsible. It was no one's fault.

Napier, like many other towns and cities around New Zealand, has massive infrastructure issues.

It's a case of "what lies beneath" for our councils - how much of the existing waste and drinking water network needs replacing or upgrading?

What sort of shape is it in?

One gets the sense no one really knows how bad it is, and if the Napier City Council does, they haven't shared the information publicly yet.

For example, what will it take to prevent low-lying Marewa/Maraenui from flooding in the future?

These were the suburbs that took longest to recover after last year's November flooding, after the city's stormwater system apparently performed to the "best of its design capability".

Does that mean that if it was designed and built 100 years ago, it performed as you would expect a 100-year-old system to perform in 2021 - miserably?

Labour asked councils for Three Waters feedback, listened, and have decided to go ahead anyway.

Again, it's difficult to sympathise over that one - feedback being ignored as part of a public consultation process is hardly revelatory in local and central government.

Although, having previously said councils could voluntarily sign up to Three Waters, that ship has u-turned and sailed. Ouch.

Where there is a little more empathy, it's around "how is this is going to work?''

Labour is making a habit of dropping significant change on New Zealanders with a startling lack of detail.

It's the act of a juggernaut, of a party unhampered by pesky coalition partners, with an agenda to get things done.

A few weeks ago, they lit the "no jab, no job" fire and walked away.

All voters want to know is "how will it affect me?".

Now, they're taking water off councils.

Can councils keep the same rate take and spend the money on other civic services or assets? How will the new entities be funded?

Councils are entitled to a reactive "we're outraged" moment.

But you'd have to think that smart councils would start thinking about how taking water management away from them can be a positive for their ratepayers.

As for ratepayers and voters - we all want to know: will my drinking water look and taste better, will our coast be less polluted, can our stormwater systems cope with future climate change "events" and what is it going to cost me?