South Taranaki District Council vigorously opposes proposed three waters reforms in submission to bill

The South Taranaki District Council unanimously voted for submission vigorously opposing the Government's reforms to three waters assets. Photo / Tracey Grant

South Taranaki District Council has sent a submission to the Government on water reform 'vigorously opposing' the proposals on how water is to be managed.

The council's submission goes to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee at Parliament currently looking over the Water Services Entities Bill.

South Taranaki mayor Phil Nixon said the council's submission accepted some water reform was needed but objected to the centralised solution presented by the government, which he described as "one size fits none."

Nixon said he objected to how the ownership and accountability of the water assets were to be taken away from the local communities who own them under the proposed bill.

Ownership of water assets would go to four regional entities and those entities will be owned by the councils that make them up, according to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Under the current bill, South Taranaki would become a part of the Central-Western entity, made up of 22 councils from the Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki regions and the Ruapehu, Rangitīkei and Whanganui Districts.

Nixon said his council had a good track record of building, maintaining and operating three waters assets.

"We certainly have the financial capacity to continue to do this and under our own long-term plan we would have achieved the outcomes Government is seeking well before 2050," he said.

As well as this, Nixon said the degree of funding claimed to be needed had been considerably overstated, and the savings under the proposal were highly implausible.

He was also disappointed with the government's handling of the proposed reform and said there had been no meaningful consultation with iwi, council, or South Taranaki from the government.

"The promise of opting out was taken away from us, and it's been councils that have had to continue to engage in good faith and not the other way around."

He hoped the Government took the considerations of the council seriously.