KEY POINTS:
The most amazing aspect of Auckland City's great water scandal is that politicians from the right and the left thought they could get away with their little money-go-round without anyone noticing. How naive was that, to think they could raise the cost of drinking water 9-10 per cent a year for the next 10 and we'd all demurely keep coughing up without protest.
No one disagrees with the need to rebuild Auckland's creaking stormwater system to prevent flows of untreated sewage and polluted road run-off into the harbours, but apportioning the costs for this public work according to the size of a person's Metrowater bill makes little more sense than linking it to my electricity usage.
The council-owned water company was set up on user-pays principles. Adding the cost of disposing of the rain that falls from the sky on to the city makes a mockery of that. Then again, this isn't about principle. It's a clumsy sleight-of-hand attempt to squeeze more dollars out of voters without breaking pledges not to raise property-linked rates exorbitantly.
As Mayor Hubbard and his councillors sit around licking their wounds, wondering what to do next, they might take a look at the March 2002 findings and recommendations of the Auckland Region Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Review which Auckland councils took part in. It comes up with a rather different solution.
I'll skip the conclusions that 5 per cent per annum savings could be made just by councils working more closely together without even any structural changes to their respective water delivery systems. I'll also skirt around the revelation that if one regional water company was set up, additional savings of between 5 per cent and 15 per cent were possible. Instead, I'll stick with the review's recommendations on the issue of the day; the disposal of stormwater.
Key among these was that stormwater services should not be amalgamated with water and wastewater. Noting that stormwater disposal charges were covered by rates, one recommendation suggested councils "should consider charging for stormwater services based on impervious surface area".
The report noted that stormwater, which is rain that runs off hard surfaces like roads and roofs, has traditionally been piped into streams and harbours untreated, even though it is heavily contaminated by pollutants and bacteria. This is no longer acceptable to the public.
It notes that stormwater is different from water and wastewater in various ways. One crucial difference is that it is not demand driven. Also, it has intense peak-flow events which are often unpredictable. Additionally, it is a major source of non-point source pollution and is not based on a user or generator pays regime.
Looking at various options for funding, the report proposed a combination of the following. An impervious surface charge for property owners - supported by an incentive system, road-user charges and contributions from developers.
In regard to road charges, it notes that stormwater run-off from roads "causes a major water quality problem" and that "advocacy to the Government is needed", arguing that "road pricing should reflect the costs of providing funding for stormwater infrastructure and water quality treatment, based on impervious surface area".
The report called for a stormwater utility in Auckland, funded by impervious surface charging, which "would provide for better signals being sent to the public", and road user payments.
Before you start rolling your eyes skyward at this Greeny silliness, just such a "rain tax", based on the amount of impervious run-off on your property, is increasingly widespread across free-enterprise United States. It had its origins in the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, which prohibited the discharge of pollutants into waterways from a "point source" such as a factory or a sewer system. In 1987, the act was amended to cover "non-point source" pollution running off roofs and streets and construction sites and the like. By March 2003, all cities were supposed to have a plan in place to handle the "non-point source" problem.
Many cities have adopted the 'impervious surface" tax as the most equitable way of dealing with the problem.
It certainly seems a more equitable option than Auckland City's attempt to link it to our drinking water usage.
Building it into the ongoing cost of roading can only help the rail cause as well, which is no bad thing.
