KEY POINTS:
Sewage will pour into Auckland's harbours and waterways for six years longer than necessary after Auckland City Council decided to put profits from its water company before the environment.
The council has ordered Metrowater to slow down work on reducing wastewater overflows at beaches and recreational areas of the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours to fill its coffers with a $280 million dividend from the water company over 10 years.
A senior figure close to the issue said: "Aucklanders will be swimming at St Heliers beach, or off Rangitoto, with more shit in the water for six more years."
Papers obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act show Metrowater opposed delaying the environmental project but was told by its political masters to toe the line.
The row is linked to rises in water bills of 9.6 per cent and 9.1 per cent in just 10 months and revelations bills will soar from $717 to $1711 over 10 years.
The council assured ratepayers last year that increases would be "small".
Papers show that the council and Metrowater agreed in January last year to cut the number of wastewater overflows at the heavily used eastern bays swimming beaches to one a year by 2027. At other beaches and waterways, the number of overflows would be cut to two or 12 times a year.
The project would also address wastewater flooding of properties and reduce overflows into Tamaki estuary.
The cost of the project, including a separate sewer separation project over 12 years, is $919 million.
However, the council had a change of heart in February last year when the finance committee "requested" Metrowater to put the project back by six years.
Councillors were told at a workshop in June that higher dividends would require environmental trade-offs. Shortly afterwards, these were spelled out in a "confidential" paper to councillors by Treasury officers Arend Brink and Louise Cosgriff.
"The shorter the time taken, the less amount of polluted water flowing in Auckland's harbours and waterways," the officers said.
The officers said Metrowater's preference delivered the "environmental goals" within 21 years, whereas the council's preferred scenario 3.5 took 27 years.
"Scenario 3.5 takes longer to complete the capital work. This means the money not spent on the capital programme will be available to meet the council's budgeted level of charitable payments [dividends]," said Arend Brink and Louise Cosgriff.
The cost of scenario 3.5 - which also pushes out the separate sewer separation project from 12 to 15 years - is $751 million.
The council told Metrowater it could still pursue the faster project but only after it met the budgeted dividends. This is unlikely, given Metrowater is $5 million shy of meeting this year's $18 million dividend target.
Council finance manager Andrew McKenzie wrote to Metrowater chairman Michael Stiassny on June 19 to press home the point that the council favoured the slower programme.
Last night Mr McKenzie said the council did not choose scenario 3.5 over the shorter project "based on charitable payment expectations". Both projects required identical capital costs for the first six years and the costs were basically identical - but he produced no figures to back this up.
