Penny Hulse: Legislation changes may not hold water

Water efficiency is closely associated with energy efficiency and there are positive effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Photo / Northern Advocate

Opinion

Parliament is writing the new Auckland Council's job description and providing its legislative tools. It is imperative the powers that be get this right but I'm worried about the provisions relating to water.

The Auckland Council is not being given the platform to manage water supplies and assets into the future and the public interest is not being properly safeguarded.

Streamlining the council's planning and processes is being done in a rush and important checks and balances are being forgotten.

It is how the legal bits are strung together that makes for a necklace or a noose.

In this case, provisions combine to let councils off the hook when it comes to stringent planning and reduce the public's influence.

They also open up the possibility of the resulting mess being handed to the private sector for 35 years at a time.

Water needs to be seen in the context of the biggest challenge facing Auckland - growth. Imagine an Auckland toddler sipping water from a lidded cup. By the time that child has a family of its own Auckland will have grown by the population of Wellington - not once, twice.

Being a bigger city is an exciting prospect. Economic and social opportunities will open up as Auckland reaches new levels of critical mass. But all of our new citizens (many of whom are arriving in maternity wards rather than airports) will require supporting infrastructure including housing, transport, education, medical care, social services and electricity.

And water, despite the fact it rains a lot in Auckland, will remain a challenge.

The Waikato pipeline did not solve Auckland's water problems and the region will need a new water source within 20 years, at great cost. Already our harbours are showing signs of degradation from sewage and toxic run-off.

I think Aucklanders are united in a belief that high-quality drinking water and unpolluted beaches are things the Auckland Council should achieve.

But will the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act help?

Unfortunately not.

As it stands, the Local Government Act is prescriptive and forces councils to adopt a comprehensive and long-term approach, which is a good thing. In particular, it requires councils to develop different options and to put those alternatives before the public.

It invites councils to think outside the square and at least consider different approaches and the public gets to see exactly what the councils are up to.

But these stringent provisions relating to water are being removed from the act in the rush to streamline local government. While the act does need a clean-up these helpful provisions are being thrown out with unhelpful ones.

The existing legislation's call for lateral thinking is extremely important to Auckland. The new legislation does not call for lateral thinking. This is just wrong. Water - especially if the city gets serious about water conservation - is one area where Auckland can reduce its huge thirst for expensive infrastructure.

If we manage existing supplies better we can delay major capital outlays for new dams and bigger pipelines. Auckland is already $1.5 billion behind in upgrades to a stormwater system flushing sewage into our harbours. Money saved should be spent on these projects.

Waitakere adopted a long-term water savings goal of 25 per cent, compared with the regionally-agreed 5 per cent. This would see water consumption hold steady until 2050, despite population growth.

Westies are already using 10 litres of water less than they were 10 years ago - per person, every day.

Reducing water consumption is a matter of education, regulation and better technologies.

The west took a water demand management approach mostly for fiscal reasons but there are environmental and social benefits as well.

Water efficiency is closely associated with energy efficiency and there are positive effects on greenhouse gas emissions. It is an approach Aucklanders and their council should consider but rather than strengthen this sensible approach the legislation ironically "waters" it down.

When combined with the proposal to reduce planning and consultation requirements and extending councils' ability to contract private sector operators to run water and sanitation systems on a commercial basis for up to 35 years, this raises concerns.

Local authorities would not necessarily be required to consult before entering such contracts or joint arrangements and there may be difficulties in adopting water demand strategies in the future.

I don't see how the Auckland Council could write an effective contract for such a long period of time, especially when Auckland will be in a period of transformation. What looks like a good deal in 2011 could be a dog in 2044.

Overseas experience of such contracts shows the private sector is not as motivated to ensure water services are universally available and of high quality. The community, meanwhile, would be left with inadequate delivery of an essential service for 35 years, or a whole generation.

Commercial confidentiality within the private sector would further erode the public's ability to access information and influence management of water supplies and assets.

The public needs to be alert to the potential combination of provisions which reduce the amount of control and democratic rights the public has over its water supplies and assets.

* Penny Hulse is the Deputy Mayor of the Waitakere City Council.