3 waters

Have to say, I'm really enjoying the content on The Platform. Well, maybe not the bit below about the liars getting a 3rd term....

theplatform.kiwi/opinions/blowing-off-the-froth-why-chris-hipkins-must-ditch-three-waters

If ever a project needed to be abandoned completely, and the rebuilding of New Zealand’s drinking, storm and wastewater infrastructure reconceptualised in ways that keep it both affordable and accountable, then that project is Three Waters.

Not that the Iwi Chairs gathered at the Copthorne Hotel are likely to see it that way. Mahuta’s project had brought them closer to Jones’s “superior right” over water than any of her predecessors. Their message to Chris Hipkins is likely to be blunt: repeal Mahuta’s legislation at your peril.

New Zealand’s new Prime Minister knows that the National Iwi Chairs Forum has the means to make life very difficult for his government. Notwithstanding their objections, however, Hipkins direction of travel – already clearly signalled by his very public demotion of Mahuta – must be confirmed by an emphatic and unequivocal pledge to repeal the Three Waters legislation and start again.

If Labour is to secure a third term, then Hipkins must make it clear to all New Zealanders – Māori and Pakeha – that his government is not about fulfilling the agendas of corporate/tribal elites. It is about making sure that every New Zealander in need of a job, a living wage, and a warm, dry house, gets one. That their family’s right to publicly-provided, quality health care and education is not denied. And that the promise of equality, enshrined in Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi, is kept. Because that’s the only beer that’s electorally fit for Labour to drink: the beer of class – not race.

Everything else is froth.

extract frompost in Co-governance, from Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR

Three Waters was built on a tapestry of lies and deception by Nanaia Mahuta and Jacinda Ardern, as they attempted to disguise the real purpose of the reforms – to give the tribal elite control of water, through a Maori-controlled regulator, Maori-controlled regional Water Entity boards, and Maori control at local catchment level.

Nor is it just freshwater, wastewater, and stormwater – without official approval, Minister Mahuta included geothermal and coastal water in the legislation as well.

But the latest deception can be found in the Water Services Legislation Bill, that is now in front of Parliament (submissions close 12 February – see HERE), which shows that the risks and liabilities of the huge debts expected to be taken on by the four Water Services Entities, will not be passed onto the Crown by Labour – as expected – but will be forced onto ratepayers!

Without any discussion in any of the background documents accompanying the new bill, if the receivers are called in over a Water Entity defaulting on its debt obligations, under Clause 137A, ratepayers would be liable: “A charge under this section must be assessed as a uniform charge in the dollar on the rateable value of property in the service area”.

While Minister Mahuta mentioned the massive borrowings that underpin her Three Waters scheme in her first reading speech on the Bill: “Detailed analysis indicates that $120 billion to $185 billion is required to fund our water network over the next 30 years”, she failed to mention that she was forcing ratepayers to carry the risk.

As the Mayor of Waitomo John Robertson explains, “Given the massive amount of debt that each of the four water services entities will take on, there has been a question as to what security would be offered to lenders. The Bill proposes that lenders will secure their debt through a property rating mechanism. Should a water entity get into financial difficulty and a receiver be appointed, the receiver would be able to bill local authority ratepayers a uniform charge to recover the entity’s debt. By shifting the risk to property owners in this way, the Crown avoids the need to offer a guarantee to lenders.”

Under Labour’s Three Waters, New Zealand ratepayers are the big losers: not only are the council water service assets and infrastructure they funded being confiscated, they will have no influence over the Water Service Entities, yet will be forced to carry the liability for their debt!

Touted by Minister Mahuta as being more affordable than council water services, Three Waters has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, where debt is used to subsidise water charges, under an assumption that it never needs to be repaid.

Back in 2021, independent assessors questioned the financial viability of Three Waters, which was based on borrowing at an interest rate of 3.5 percent. With rising interest rates and ratepayers forced to carry the cost of failure, Prime Minister Hipkins has a responsibility to re-assess the scheme.

Three councils have challenged the 3 /5 Waters legislation. The judge found against them stating the High Court could not rule against the will of parliament.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mayors-react-as-three-waters-legal-challenge-fails-further-legal-action-not-ruled-out/SGPLWLN25FDCTN3SNB7D74XZLU/
However the judgement made some notable statements that confirm that the government and Mahoota the looter have been lying about its structure:

“I accept that the Three Waters reforms involve a form of expropriation for which compensation could be given but, whether it is, is ultimately a matter for Parliament,” Justice Mallon found.

"local councils will lose central incidents of ownership that they presently hold... that local councils’ ability to control the use of their assets will be materially diluted through the WSE governance structure, and... that local democratic accountability for the provision of the Three Waters services in local communities is essentially lost."

"has deliberately decided that [the Three Waters funding package] is not intended to compensate local councils for the value of the infrastructure assets"

Oh good golly, Luxon has just made himself NZ biggest racist or so the attacks will be framed.

good write up from Kiwi Blog
www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/02/the_consensus_for_a_three_waters_model.html

concludes
Now consider a scenario where a decision has to be made on a new sewerage plant. Let’s say Option 1 will filter out 99.9% of bacteria and have it pump out to sea 250 metres out, and Option 2 will filter out 99.95% of bacteria and have it pump out 750 metres. Option 1 costs say $200 million or $2,000 a household and Option 2 costs $900 million or $9,000 a household.
Now if a water company is under the control of Councils who are accountable to ratepayers, they will probably say the quadrupling of cost will not match the marginal increase in benefits of Option 2, and go for Option 1.
But under Labour’s model, it is almost inevitable that every single time the water company will choose the most expensive gold plated option, because they can’t be sacked for imposing huge costs of ratepayers.
Democratic accountability is why we now have elected Government, not Kings.

As an engineer, and having been involved in the installation of a couple of wastewater schemes up north, I resemble those comments.

Of course the datum for a public scheme should always be that it is cheaper than septic tanks. A public scheme should be an order of magnitude cheaper than septic tanks.

A couple of issues that quickly spring to mind is that you need land for disposal fields, and you need to maintain the system. You also need the land to be able to absorb water all year, including through winter.

In the context of 3 waters and poor communities, it is almost always those communities that don't / can't maintain septic tanks. You then end up with the kids playing in shitty ponding water and getting sick. That goes for posh places like Riverhead as well, before the wastewater went through. The clay soils can't adsorb wastewater, esp in winter. Alternatively, tank disposal fields can cause major slips in rain events, like we just have had 3 times, if they are on steep ground.

The great irony with a couple of the schemes I was involved in that fixed those problems were that they were funded either partially or fully by the Ministry for Health. There were key public health risks identified via failing septic tanks and remedied. And we did not need co-governance to do it.

Also bear in mind the Maori world view of wastewater. That is highly relevant to co-governance and costs. Centralised system are costing so much, because it is physically impossible to get a new discharge consent. I.e. you can't get consent to dispose of the treated wastewater, regardless of how well treated it is. Therefore, all around the country, Councils are conveying wastewater 10's of kms to plants with existing consents.
In addition, we are not allowed to discharge to rivers anymore. Maori require all wastewater disposed to land. Think Mangawhai and the $60mil dollar scheme. I can name 1/2 dozen towns / schemes where the existing RC has expired and it can't be renewed because it discharges to a river. In each situation a new WWTP is required to meet the new treatment standards, then very large areas of land are needed to discharge it to. In most of those cases a storage dam is required as they can't irrigate in winter, and / or the suitable land is 50km or more away from the township. All as per Mangawhai.

In each of those 1/2 dozen cases what would have been a $5-$10 million job is now a $30-$60 million dollar job, spread over 1,000 to 2,000 dwellings... It is simply not affordable. The country needs to have a frank conversation about how gold plated we want these schemes, and exactly how much the minority Maori view is costing our communities.

looks like the 'branding' people have come back with their $200,000? recommendations

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has signalled a Three Waters rebrand will be announced “imminently”, saying the term for the controversial reforms has become “confused” and the focus needs to be on “affordable water infrastructure”.

hope someone asks him how stealing water infrastructure from rate-payers and paying unelected maori to have a veto over water decisions does anything other than make water more expensive 

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/pm-chris-hipkins-signals-three-waters-rebrand-imminently-wants-focus-on-affordable-water-infrastructure/BC3KC6HXURGQXCOJGU7JP4XL7A/

"Asked why he no longer used the phrase “Three Waters” to describe the long-planned reforms, Hipkins said the term had become “somewhat confused”.

afaik, now that it apparently also includes geo-thermal and oceans? the aspiration is that it's "ALL WATERS"

certainly if team-chippy get in they won't be limiting it to "3 waters"