Seven years later the town's still waiting, not only for water but any sign that water will arrive from a source other than the local river at some point in the future.
We are also waiting to hear what happened to the $3 million that was spent on the apparently defunct Sweetwater project.
Thus far the council has insisted that it can't tell us where the money went. Won't tell us, more likely.
It is inconceivable that any organisation, even one without a history of efficiency, could lose that sort of money without knowing what it was spent on.
One assumes that an assiduous search would at the very least produce the relevant cheque butts.
It would be nice to know who those cheques were made out to and who signed them.
The Serious Fraud Office has lost interest - former Mayor Wayne Brown observed in 2014 that it had found evidence of incompetence, but incompetence wasn't illegal - but the writer understands that the police are still sniffing.
The SFO examined the council's financial records from 2009-13, finding (in 2015) that some councillors and staff had failed to follow rules on project governance and the use of ratepayers' money, but there was insufficient evidence, not quiet the same as no evidence, to lay criminal charges.
Whether or not there was any form of criminality attached to the Sweetwater fiasco, we have the right to know why so much was spent for no return whatsoever.
The writer understands that sinking the solitary bore cost $400,000; how many people who have sunk residential bores have paid that much, and why should a council test bore cost so much more than one for you or I?
Did someone's eyes light up when they saw who the client was? Did the council query that cost? Had the council established how much water was likely to be there, and that it would be permitted to take it, before it committed to paying that cost? Given that multiple bores would have been needed to supply the town, was it expecting/prepared to pay $400k apiece?
Don't know the answers to any of those questions, and to a large degree they are irrelevant.
The point now is, why is Kaitaia still waiting for the council to find an alternative source of water for a town that predictably runs dry most summers?
The reliable provision of reticulated water, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any local authority, is a major issue for the FNDC.
And to be fair, it's a problem that will not be easily addressed. Summer water shortages are an issue from one end of the district to the other.
Each community will probably require different solutions, the common factors being cost and the council's apparent inability or unwillingness to actually do something apart from imposing restrictions.
Kaitaia is not alone in enjoying the right to feel aggrieved, but a supposedly reliable alternative source of water was identified seven years ago.
And remember that, while some thought Dennis Bowman was pushing it to expect water to be running within a calendar year, no one pooh poohed the idea. The council obviously thought he was on to something, given that it spent $3 million.
Now it's 2017, and what's happened? Nothing, except for an abortive SFO investigation and another sprinkler ban.
We should accept that councils often move at a glacial pace, even when there is a demonstrable and pressing need for action.
But we should not accept that it has been beavering away in the background, confronting insurmountable problems on our behalf, with anything like the sense of urgency required. Or at all.
One would not have said that in July 2015. Almost 18 months ago this newspaper reported that the council was planning to review all options to secure an adequate water supply for Kaitaia, including desalination and further scrutiny of the Sweetwater proposals.
It had set up a Kaitaia Water Reference Group to liaise with the community and interest groups, and work to resolve existing risks to the water supply in drought conditions.
It was to be led by Crs John Vujcich and Dave Collard (who lost his seat last year), with support from Cr Colin Kitchen and Te Hiku Community Board chairman Lawrie Atkinson (who's still there, but is no longer chairman).
There was going to be liaison and consultation with the community, and a sustainable and cost-effective solution would be found.
The group would look at all potential sources, including the Okahu dam (built by the Kaitaia Borough Council, and, according to who you talk to, still a viable source or irredeemably toxic), the Awanui River, other rivers and streams (not sure where they might be), household tanks and the Aupouri aquifer.
Not for the first time it was noted that there could be much better sites from which to draw from the aquifer than Sweetwater, sites that were closer to Kaitaia, closer to electricity, and already owned by the council, all of which would make them cheaper to develop.
We were also told in July 2015 that legalities prevented the council from disclosing precisely what the Sweetwater $3 million had been spent on, but that information "could emerge later," when the reference group held public meetings in Te Hiku Ward to explain what it was doing to establish a reliable water supply. Presumably the 'legalities' were going to disappear.
If those public meetings have taken place this newspaper wasn't aware of them, and 17 months would seem to be plenty of time in which to get the process rolling.
The inescapable conclusion is that nothing has been done, and with capital funding not planned until 2019, nothing is going to be done for a good few years yet.
Meanwhile Kaitaia will continue to experience dry summers - the Northland Regional Council's rule of thumb is that one summer in five will be dry enough to cause water supply problems, but that seems a bit conservative - the council will continue to impose water restrictions, and its customers will continue to pay exorbitant charges for the water they are allowed to use.
At the very least the council should tell us not only what it plans to do but when, with a time line tacked on to every office wall so every employee and every elected member sees it every day.
The council that was elected in 2013 made much of setting goals, formulating visions that would propel us into a more prosperous future.
Let's put that on hold for a while, so it can grapple with the challenge of ensuring that taps don't run dry every time the weather gods let us down.
Long-term visions don't count for much when it can't even do that.
