It’s time to stop polluting the discussion about water management with politics
Friday, 27 January 2023
Lana Hart is a Christchurch-based writer, broadcaster and tutor.
OPINION: It was about 30 years ago in a sci-fi movie that I first heard the idea that ‘water was the new oil’ – a liquid important enough to determine geopolitical boundaries, elevate or ruin tribes, and ignite horrific wars.
In the early 90s, water seemed to me so commonplace that it was unimaginable that something omnipresent might one day be valuable enough to inspire the same energetic political disputes as oil, land, and religion in our planet’s history.
Water conflicts now erupt across the world but interestingly, it is rarely the lack of water that fuels the conflict, but its governance and management.
**READ MORE:
* Chris Hipkins' big stocktake: Here's what his Government could 'reprioritise'
* Could Three Waters be on the chopping block? Here's what Prime Minister Chris Hipkins could do
* 'We're doing too much': Chris Hipkins prepares to cut Government policies
**
The Kiwi version of this global trend is embodied in the Government’s water governance reforms when, in 2017, it began to explore ways to modernise and build scale into the country’s deteriorating infrastructure and management.
Last week’s Labour leadership change has forced fresh attention on the beleaguered Three Waters reform, with National re-asserting that, if elected, it would reverse the legislative mandate underpinning the reforms. Meanwhile, Labour is expected to review and possibly downgrade its unpopular or unknown reform programme in its upcoming policy reset.
Despite the ongoing, sometimes dramatic, pushback on the reforms, there is at least consensus on the state of the nation’s water infrastructure. Almost all players, and especially water industry representatives, agree that the system requires significant investment to not only avoid another 2016 Havelock North water contamination disaster, but to future-proof the system for our changing population, climate, and consumer expectations, while ensuring the cost of water is affordable.
Some also argue that we have legislative and moral responsibilities to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which should be realised in any system involving the natural resources that were stripped from indigenous people’s access and control.
Such a well-intentioned goal has been scuppered by the Government’s persistent missteps in policy rollouts and communications. Early on, political parties and councils accused Government of power grabs and forcing through the changes without proper consultation. Councils continued to claim that ratepayer-funded improvements to local infrastructure were not taken into account in the plan, and that water provision was a central role of councils; removing it was an existential threat. Offensive television ads, the rushing through Parliament of the first of three legislative changes under urgency, and several other miscalculations further tainted the reforms.
It must be said that many of these missteps were made while the Government was distracted by one of the deadliest plagues in history, shutting borders for the first time ever, and establishing thousands of new protocols, entities, and responsibilities in a healthcare system that was chronically under-resourced by successive governments. These distractions are not excuses, but they are legitimate reasons for something as boring as water to take a two-year political back seat to something as urgent as the imminent spread of a potentially deadly virus.
From a water consumer perspective, all the noise around this important reform really sucks. My local council, like others, has recently started charging for excessive water use, forcing a policy reset of our own about adolescent-length showers and leaving the sprinkler on in the garden. Our years of unlimited access to drinkable water without charge are over, marking an important psychological change in our household’s perceived value of it.
Consumers want reliable and affordable drinking water, stormwater, and sewage systems governed sustainably, securely and fairly. Water is too important for its management to be politicised, uncertain, or inequitable.
Despite many of the problems with the reforms being addressed in the Government’s acceptance of nearly all the Select Committee’s review recommendations, our water conflict continues to rage on.
Smaller councils – some with fewer than 15,000 ratepayers – with little technical expertise or capital expenditure budgets cannot continue to be expected to negotiate the complex climate change, Te Tiriti, environmental and consumer safety issues of the 21st century. Farmers who have benefitted for generations from unfettered access to water must, like households, reflect on its true cost and consider making changes to their farming practices and spreadsheets.
Auckland’s unique demographic and regional characteristics might justify the need for bespoke approaches under the reforms, but their size doesn’t warrant exclusion from them.
Shifting the management of water supply and sanitation from 67 local councils to four publicly-owned entities would help ensure there is enough scale and expertise to run a complex system of shared water sources well, dispose of it safely, and set costs affordably.
It’s time to stop polluting the discussion about water management with politics focused solely on local areas and to see the larger picture of our country’s need to transform the failing system collectively.
As Labour’s policy reset is revealed with possible changes to the Three Waters reforms, let’s hope this most precious of resources remains high on the Government’s agenda, no matter who is elected.