Three Waters Review
Aotearoa Water Action
The government is currently undertaking a review of the way in which water, stormwater and wastewater services are
delivered, regulated and funded (“the Three Waters Review”).
The major focus of course is on water, with much of the impetus being as a result of last year’s Havelock North
contamination, and the report of the Inquiry that followed it.
Aotearoa Water Action (“AWA”) has an interest in the outcome of the Three Waters Review. Broadly, AWA’s key purpose is
to support the rights of communities to abundant, clean and affordable water, and to manage their water resources in the
interests of the community rather than corporate profit.
Water New Zealand, a lobby group that represents bureaucrats and private companies involved in the delivery and
management of drinking water, is lobbying the Government and Councils in support of a more centralised system, that
would be controlled by the people and organisations they represent, rather than by elected Councils.
The Minister of Local Government has recently conducted a fact-finding tour to Ireland and Scotland, both of which have
in recent years adopted the single-desk model that Water NZ is pushing. It would be very disappointing if her enquiries
did not take her further than those examples, neither of which represent anywhere near best practice in water delivery
management.
The creation of Irish Water in 2014, accompanied by the introduction of a poorly thought out metering and charging
regime and well justified fears of privatisation, resulted in mass protests across Ireland and an eventual Government
backdown on the worst of its program.
Scottish Water was recently prosecuted and convicted for supplying water unfit for human consumption, while between 2005
and 2014 it was found guilty of 51 pollution offences, including one chlorine discharge that killed over 1000 young
trout and salmon.
A far better example of best practice is the Dutch model where the country’s supply is provided by 10 publicly owned
companies, which are largely internally regulated, but whose performance is rigorously benchmarked against the most
important standards, including environmental standards. The Dutch supply is almost entirely unchlorinated yet provides
some of the best quality water community drinking water in the world. Importantly, the Dutch Government recently passed
a law prohibiting private enterprises from supplying community water.
The experience of the Netherlands, and other best practice examples such as Germany and Austria, proves that
centralisation and chemicalisation are not essential features of a safe, high quality water supply system.
It is encouraging to see that this Government is addressing some of the serious issues that have put healthy community
water supply at risk in Aotearoa/New Zealand, particularly chronic underfunding of infrastructure. However, the Review
needs to look also at the threats to water safety that the Havelock North Inquiry and Water NZ have chosen to ignore.
Intensive farming and the discharge of nutrients and contaminants into drinking water supplies, over exploitation by
water bottlers and other environmentally destructive activities, and an over-reliance on chemical disinfection rather
than good preventive practices.
It is also good to see that the Minister has ruled out privatisation of water delivery for now. But any centralised
model featuring universal charging of consumers would provide a ready-made framework for privatisation, and as we know
it would only take a handful of swinging voters to elect a Government which has historically aligned itself with the
transfer of public assets and infrastructure into private hands.
Ultimately, any model needs to recognise that one size does not fit all and that communities are best placed to make
decisions in their own interests. The financial support of central government, and the technical support of the
scientific and engineering community should not be predicated on taking away communities’ rights to determine the way in
which they manage and safeguard their drinking water supply for the benefit of their citizens and the environment. The
fact that some of the players in this debate may have greater access to resources and influence should not be decisive
in the outcome.