Rudman's city: The people have spoken, so stop stalling water reforms

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Surprise, surprise, the boring - but politically contentious - topic of water has been discreetly edged off the agenda for this year's local body elections.

The review team that has already spent 18 months analysing Auckland's water supply and disposal systems has decided it needs another nine months to come up with an answer.

I doubt you'll find many politicians weeping about the decision.

The announcement of the delay is slipped into the final lines of a "review update" just mailed to those who made submissions during the consultation process this year.

"The review team needs to complete work in a number of areas. It is likely that councils will only be in a position to make their decisions and report to [the] Government in March or April 2002."

Yet just over a year ago, when the review was launched, we were told "a final agreed position among the councils on the future of the industry could be reached by Christmas [2000] but may extend to February [2001]."

Why the delay? Well, apparently the politicians involved in the review were concerned that the consultation process had not been thorough enough and requested more, particularly with Maori.

The $250,000 review was instigated in 1998 at the behest of the former National Government as part of a national water review.

The Auckland review process has concentrated on how best to manage and operate the region's $3 billion water and wastewater services.

The review team came up with three possible ways of running the industry.

Option One, called Improved Status Quo, would retain Watercare as the regional wholesaler and leave the councils to continue the retail side of the business.

Over this would be an independent regulator to ensure efficiency. Estimated savings from this model were $300,000.

Option Two was called Shared Network, and borrowed from the much-derided electricity reforms.

It involved separate regional water and wastewater companies, proportionally owned by the local councils, plus three competing water and wastewater retailing companies. Estimated savings: $400,000 to $1.9 million.

Option Three, called One Geographical Business, had one organisation, overseen by an independent regulator and owning and controlling the entire water and wastewater industry. Expected savings: $8.2 million to $9.7 million.

To the disappointment of those involved, public interest has been less than overwhelming. Despite an extensive publicity drive, only 2356 submissions were received.

That's if you don't count 2486 protest postcards distributed by the Water Pressure Group that arrived by submission deadline, and many more that arrived afterwards.

The Water Pressure Group had broadened the debate by insisting on raising the issues of public ownership (which was never in question) and charging methods.

These campaigners wanted a return to a payment regime based on property values, rather than one based on water usage.

Of the 2307 submitters who addressed the three official options, the clear winner was option three, the all-in-one model. It got the support of 68 per cent, compared with 19 per cent for the improved status quo and just 6 per cent for the "electricity" model.

As a fan of a super-city solution to Auckland's governmental problems, it's encouraging to see huge support for the all-in-one model.

Could it be that if we were polled on roading and public transport, support for a similar model would be just as conclusive?

What I'm not so sure about is the reason for the water review delay.

Most review committees would kill for such overwhelming support for one option. Why they feel the need for further consultation escapes me.

The vast majority of water users didn't take part the first time round because the arcane debate about structures was of no interest.

All we want is water coming out of our taps when we turn them on, and pipes at the other end to take the wastewater away. If the all-in-one model can do that and save us $10 million as well, why wait?

Meanwhile, back to the great wheelie bin debate.

I was too severe in my caning of Auckland City councillors for their intransigence over the allocation of the new bins to non-residential properties.

On Wednesday, I said they had accepted official advice to ignore public protest. This was not altogether right. Last Friday, councillors modified one aspect of their allocation policy.

Until then, non-residential properties with multiples tenancies on one rate assessment were entitled to just one little wheelie bin.

The councillors' change of heart means additional ones can now be bought at $185 each.