Watercare Avoids Public Responsibility

Ownership and control of North Shore’s sewer networks, pump stations and the Rosedale Treatment Plant are being transferred to Watercare now, because Watercare will be running all of Auckland’s wastewater systems from November. Unhappily, beneath the public radar, Watercare is breaking a carefully constructed public contract....

Watercare doesn’t like the publicly accountable way North Shore City Council runs North Shore’s sewers. Behind the scenes, Watercare is attempting to change many of the controls and systems that North Shore City Council has built up over the years which give the public confidence their sewage system is operated to the high standard that has been agreed with North Shore’s ratepayers....

As an ARC Councillor, I have been locked in sewer network resource consent negotiations with North Shore City Council for the past two years. NSCC was required under the RMA to apply for discharge consents to permit - subject to conditions - periodic overflows from its sewer network. These may be caused by very high rainfall and sewer blockages. Poor maintenance and management can increase these problems and their highly visible and disturbing environmental effects which can include beach closures.

When NSCC first applied for consent, ARC commissioners were not satisfied with the conditions and management arrangements proposed by NSCC. So commissioners granted NSCC a very short 6 year permit. NSCC appealed this decision. This resulted in the mediation process. Negotiations have resulted in a much tighter set of conditions which give the public confidence that the operation of the network and its development into the future will meet their requirements for environmental care and health protection.

Mediation concluded successfully two months ago – to the delight of North Shore City Council and ARC. But in recent weeks Watercare has put a legal spanner in the works. Watercare has sat on the sidelines as a section 274 party. Now Watercare is claiming that as it will be the future operator of North Shore’s sewers, it does not accept the publicly agreed controls that have been developed by North Shore City Council, and which have been accepted by ARC as the regulator of discharges.

I am concerned that what Watercare wants will weaken the controls against sewage overflows into the North Shore environment. It will water down public accountability for overflows and sewage pollution. It will split responsibility between Watercare and the Auckland Council – so the public won’t have the same one-stop-shop they have now when there’s a sewage problem. And it will lead to a loss of transparency because Watercare does not want to commit to the same public reporting and monitoring that North Shore City Council has developed a regionwide reputation for.

I have more than a decade’s institutional experience of North Shore’s sewage systems – both from a City Council operation’s point of view and from the Auckland Regional Council’s regulatory point of view.

I was Chair and Deputy Chair of North Shore City Council’s Works and Environment Committee from 1998 to 2004 implementing Project Care objectives to clean up North Shore beaches and inshore seawater from sewage pollution caused by dry and wet weather overflows. And from 2004 to now I have been appointed by Auckland Regional Council as Resource Consent Commissioner deciding exactly how North Shore’s sewage network should be operated and improved under the Resource Management Act to minimise adverse effects on North Shore’s environment. This detailed work has resulted in North Shore City Council and Auckland Regional Council agreeing a 35 year consent to operate the sewage network, subject to conditions and controls which have been negotiated carefully over the past two years.

Watercare is mounting an Environment Court challenge to have many of these controls and conditions deleted.

I have been immersed in North Shore’s sewage systems for years, and what I see happening now, with integration into Watercare, is not a pretty picture.

The following table contains details of selected changes that Watercare is seeking. The table states existing conditions; Watercare's reasons for wanting it changed; what Watercare wants instead; and my comments:

ARC/NSCC agreed condition	Watercare issue	Change required by Watercare	My comment
3. That the consent holder shall minimise wastewater overflows from the wastewater network to the environment.	The condition is not measureable. Note that conditions that cannot be measured effectively are ultra vires.	Delete condition 3.	This is the main condition imposed on NSCC by ARC in exchange for granting NSCC the right to operate the network to reticulate sewage, noting that discharges can happen.
6. That the Consent Holder shall minimise wet weather overflows that occur on private properties.	The condition is not measureable….	Delete condition 6.	Wet weather overflows on private properties have been a major issue for NSCC and communities. They are extremely upsetting for homeowners. The reporting that is needed is to simply report on these, and demonstrate over time that they are reducing. This would be associated with reports on methods and resources being deployed.
13. The Consent Holder shall operate and maintain the network and any overflows from it in accordance with a Wastewater Network Operations and Maintenance Manual… which SHALL include… a), b) and c).	Watercare will progressively move towards common regional operations and maintenance manuals in the future……it is considered it is the Consent Holders responsibility to meet its consent obligations… without that being detailed in a condition of consent.	Amend condition to more general wording….	These requirements are aimed at minimising dry weather overflows in particular, and also that show how the specific incidents that have redevilled NSCC’s network will be responded to, through very specific operations approaches that have been built up over recent years, and which give community confidence.
14. That the consent holder shall use best endeavours to require private connections from dwellings to the public wastewater network to use BPO materials that do not leak.	The condition lacks clarity and provides no certainty as to what the Consent holder must do…. Futhermore private connections are covered by the Building Code over which Watercare has no control.	Delete condition 14.	50% of stormwater infiltration comes from private connections. NSCC routinely pressure tests private connections to ensure they hold water. "Best endeavours" provides for the operator to develop a methodology, how to advise property owner, how to set connection test. Unreasonable to expect Council to do this job, when Watercare can do it as part of providing service.
17. That a wastewater network operation, maintenance and capital works programme shall be in place to minimise the occurrence of chokes, exfiltration, inflow and infiltration…	The exact obligations on the consent holder are unclear and cannot be measured…. The Auckland Council will need to control inflow, so any controls will depend on actions taken by the council. This cannot be a condition of this consent.	Delete “inflow”	“Inflow” is the word for illegal rainwater connections to the sewer network. Eg when a homeowner connects the house roofwater downpipe to the sewer. NSCC routinely inspects properties to detect these illegal “inflow” connections and get them changed. It is appropriate for the integrated wastewater service provider to do this inspection as part of the integrated “toilet to WWTP” service. That is an integrated service, for which wastewater charges are levied. Reduced inflows leads to reduced need to increase pipe capacities. It should be core business for Watercare to minimise inflows to the network.
22. That the consent holder shall prepare an Integrated Natural Water Monitoring Plan to cover all effects based on monitoring of discharges, infrastructure and receving environment assessments and effects on bathing beach quality. The Monitoring Plan shall specifically include the monitoring and reporting of:a) frequency and duration of pumping station wet weather overflows in each recreation water use area;b) number of advistory notices erected at each recreation water use area in accordance with the Incidence Response conditions…. etc	Bathing beach monitoring, erection of signs and environmental monitoring of receiving environments is a function of the new Auckland Council….	Delete condition	This is a very serious change. Watercare will be in a position to know when its network overflows, when monitoring should occur, testing, and when signs need to be put up. As part of its incidence response plan (as is done now by NSCC). To delete this condition is to absolve itself of a fundamental responsibility, and to transfer all risk to Auckland Council.
23. Incidence response. The Consent Holder shall implement and maintain as Incident Response Plan within the Operations and Maintenance Manual… which sets out how the consent Holder will respond to and avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of overflows. (JKC: This contains detailed specifications, which SHALL BE included).	A condition is acceptable. However, detailed requirements as to the contents of this plan is inappropriate….	Watercare free to implement and maintain such a manual, which will be “provided to the manager on request…”	These response details were worked through in detail with Project Care working party, and North Shore community. They are the result of an enormous amount of work and community experience. It is these which give the community confidence that their wastewater network is being maintaining and operated in a way which gives them confidence and knowledge that local wisdom has been incorporated. Losing this detail would be to lose the essence of what built faith and trust between the community and NSCC in regard to wastewater management.
24. …At times of dry weather flow, as quickly as possible, and in any case within 1 hour… etc	…the level of detail in this condition puts unncessary constraints on the ability of the Consent Holder to operate the system efficiently.	Amend … "as soon as practicable"…	Dry weather overflows are severe in their impact. This condition was negotiated with NSCC. It is a service level that it has agreed to, and which community expects.

Watercare wants regional consistency. It ignores the fact that North Shore residents have agreed to pay more for their sewage network to be cleaner and more tightly than the networks run by Waitakere and Auckland City Councils. It ignores the fact that East Coast beaches and beach waters are highly prized and protected from sewage overflows. As are the inner harbour waters of Little Shoal Bay, Shoal Bay and Ngataringa Bay. We don't want regional consistency that weakens wastewater discharge controls on the North Shore.

The pattern in the changes sought by Watercare, is that Watercare will accept responsibility only for the parts of North Shore's sewer network operations that it has complete control over. The integrated "toilet to treatment plant" role currently taken by North Shore City Council will be fragmented if Watercare is allowed to take the easy bits, and leave the rest behind for Auckland Council. The costs for those wastewater services would stay with Auckland Council too.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Watercare is operating as a corporate raider, asset-stripping North Shore's wastewater operation, taking the trunk network with its predictable revenue stream, and leaving behind all the risky loose ends associated with residential connections, as well as avoiding public responsibility for sign-posting its sewage overflows or cleaning them up within agreed timeframes.

However. ARC has not accepted Watercare's proposed changes.
The matter is still in front of the Environment Court.

You would think - would you not - that Auckland Transition Agency would have a view on what Watercare is attempting to achieve here. I look forward to being on the new Auckland Council and ensuring that Watercare does the integrated job that needs to be done with wastewater - overflows, private connections, toilet to treatment plant. The lot.

That's what "one-stop-shops" are for after all.

Northern Busway "Good To 2040"

According to the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA) recent investigations, North Shore's public transport needs to the Auckland CBD will be met by the Busway until around 2040 - under certain conditions....

On Monday 6th September I was Auckland Regional Council's (ARC) representative at a meeting of the Northern Corridor Steering Group. This is attended by reresentatives of: North Shore City Council, Rodney District Council, Auckland City Council, ARC, NZTA, Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA), and Ontrack. I was chair of this committee from 2001 to 2004 when its main priority was the design and start up of the Northern Busway Project. Now I'm it's ARC representative - along with Christine Rose.

A significant part of the meeting was allocated to three main items: the Third Harbour Crossing Project; the extension of the Busway to Orewa and beyond; and the capacity of the Northern Busway.

So here are some of my notes from that meeting:

* Busway patronage has increased by 6.9% in the 12 months to March 2010 in the 7:00am to 9:00am peak period.
* The Busway will cope with predicted increases in public transport demand to the CBD out to 2040, but the problem that is faced is the ability of the CBD to absorb all of that bus traffic, which would be more than 105 buses/hour. Thus work is being done on adding another street access into the CBD. At present all buses go along Fanshawe Street. That's the Busway access into CBD. Officers are working on an option where buses leave SH1at Cook Street and access the CBD along that street as well. This seems a sensible option. I raised - as I have for 2 or 3 years now - the need to connect the Northern Busway into a south bound corridor - to become the Southern Busway. This would for example go to Auckland Airport to service all of those employment opportunities there. It would also mean that buses did not need to stop in Auckland CBD. It would require rationalisation of some Southern core bus services - so that they became integrated with North Shore core services. This is the logic that has been applied to designing high capacity bus services in Curitiba. Buses do not park in the CBD - they park at the edges of the region.
* the busway clip-ons are "good for 20 years" at their present loading. The reports indicate that heavy traffic continues to be a problem for the life of the clip-ons. Especially as permitted axle loadings have recently been increased. I asked questions about SH1/ SH18/ SH20 being the preferred heavy freight route North South - given that Waterview connection is being built. Answers were not very satisfactory. Surely it is rational to take un-necessary heavy traffic off the Harbour Bridge, and route extra heavy traffic on the new State Highway corridor. That would add to the justification for it, and extend the life of the bridge clip-ons.
* Officers advised generally that heavy rail for urban environment was "hugely expensive". They provided figures of $7 billion to provide rail along the Northern Busway alignment (I recall his included the rail tunnels plus Britomart connection). However they explained that rail along SH! was not a good placement of rail in terms of integration with land uses. Rail really needed to be better connected with urban environment (Takapuna etc) to get more economic use of the asset, and if that of that route was taken - which would most likely mean tunnels through North Shore - the cost would be $10 billion.
* In any case, officers advised, whichever options were identified as best, there would need to be a staged approach taken, to incrementally increase capacity of existing system (Busway) and to prepare staged options for later increases in PT capacity - be it rail or whichever.

So that is my report of the meeting plus a couple of my questions at the time.

In hindsight I was a little disquieted by the emphasis, or underlying direction taken by officers in the advice given.

These concerns are:

* there is a reluctance to deal with the suggestion of de-loading the Harbour Bridge by re-routing heavy traffic through the new SH20, SH18, SH1 option.
* there is a sense that the third Harbour Crossing is being set up as a freight route first up (stage one), rather than as public transport rail tunnel route (which might be a later stage because it's so expensive). This may require some lateral thinking around how this corridor might be a light rail technology (and be significantly cheaper and easier to retrofit into the North Shore urban environment). But it would need to seamlessley connect with other high capacity Regional PT networks.

Anyway. A little report back for your interest.

Easy Transport Auckland - Launched

Here we are, it's Sunday afternoon, 12th September, in QE II Square across from Britomart. What's going on over there...?

And who's this woman holding a cut-out bike. Pippa Coom if I'm not mistaken. And isn't that Alex Swney in a cardboard box? And texting - that's Tenby Powell. Another Waitemata Ward councilllor candidate. And back left - wait - isn't that Rod Oram? Must be something important....

And look at that. All lined up and ready to go. Lanes laid out. Must be a race...

That man in a train - complete with white smoke out of its smoke stack. Isn't that Mike Lee? Chairman of ARC. Rob Thomas is the cyclist sharing the road with Pippa. And Jessie Chalmers is the red bus - CV candidate for Waitemata & Gulf local board.

He's sharing this race with the other candidate competing for the Auckland Council ward seat of Waitemata. Alex Swney. Sharing an interest in transport outcomes. Bloody good thing.

Paul Stephenson is another bike person - C&R local board candidate for Waitemata Ward. Seems he's got a cardboard bike too - hiding behind his billboard. Man. We'll have cycle lanes all over Auckland at this rate...

And here we have Greg Moyle. He's a C&R man with enthusiasms for buses - yellow ones. He spoke that he liked shorter ones for the CBD. Good idea Greg, That's what they have in Perth. Not these great clunkers. They can do the inter-town routes.

By the way, that's David Slack the renowned speech writer, holding the microphone. Part of the organising ctte. He's talking to Christopher Dempsey in the ferry. This is Easy Transport Auckland's initiative. A coalition of CAA (Cycle Advocates for Auckland) and CBT (Campaign for Better Transport) and Living Streets Aotearoa. You can see their website: Easy Transport Auckland

And Pippa had a few choice words too. As did one or two other candidates dotting the ranks.

And here's the redoubtable Barbara Cuthbert. Sustainable transport maestro and impressario. Fantastic. And just look at that Tee-Shirt. A collectors item before too much longer... And with her is the thrower of the dice. CBT's Cam Pitche's little daughter, Kate. It is a race...

And look - she's thrown it - the dice. It's above her head. Step out of the way. Looks like the ferry to the right is winning...

Bugger. Start again. And the Britomart Loop project inches into the lead. But they are all important for Auckland. These projects. And it's great to see candidates from across the spectrum lining up to support them...

And here's the finish line. Can you see? 280 kms of new cyclepaths for bikes. And there are equivalent targets for the other modes represented in this race. Check out the website for details. And for how candidates have completed the questionnaire.

Chinese Warships at Queens Wharf

On Sunday 12th September a couple of Chinese warships came to visit Auckland. They tied up at Queens Wharf and I was amazed at the level of interest from the local community. Queues all the way back to the Red Gates.

According to China Daily: "...Two Chinese Navy ships arrived here in Auckland's New Zealand's largest city Saturday on a four-day visit to the South Pacific country. It is the fourth visit by Chinese Navy ships since China and New Zealand established diplomatic relations in 1972. At about 10 am local time (2200 GMT Friday), the training vessel, Zhenghe, and the frigate, Mian Yang, slowly entered Queen's Wharf under the guidance of a New Zealand Navy ship, Wellington. The Chinese Navy fleet was warmly received by Royal New Zealand Navy Maritime Component Commander Ross Smith, Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand Xu Jianguo, and a huge crowd of overseas Chinese....

They loved the visit. Photos and groups everywhere. Festive and cultural. Again the theme of Auckland as a cultural gateway opens up.

The Chinese flag was being waved by a few visitors. And it all added colour to the pictures that Auckland's local Chinese population will take home after the visit.

"Build Friendship Bridges to Meet Good Friends" - read the banners on both ships, which were crammed with visitors.

The China Dail story went on: "....After the welcoming ceremony, Commander Smith and Ambassador Xu stepped onto the Zhenghe training vessel and held a short meeting with Chinese Navy Rear Admiral Leng Zhenqing, who serves as the commander of the visiting formation. Rear Admiral Leng then headed toward Devonport Navy Base on Auckland's North Shore, the home of the Royal New Zealand Navy, to meet senior New Zealand military officials. Smith told Xinhua he was very glad to see Chinese Navy ships visit New Zealand and he expected the Royal New Zealand Navy could conduct joint training with the Chinese Navy. Leng said the visit was part of efforts to construct a harmonious world and a harmonious ocean and was also conducive to improving the level of military cooperation between the two countries. During the stay in New Zealand, visiting Chinese Navy soldiers will visit an old people's home and give a joint musical performance with a troupe from the Royal New Zealand Navy. The two ships will also be open for public tours on Sunday. New Zealand is the fourth stop on the Chinese Navy ships' itinerary, which has included calls on Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Tonga, and will take them to Australia...." So many photos....

And videos, family shots...

One man even offered to take my photo (and boy was he a pro'), and then in exchange I took his. Now there's a cultural partnership!

The bright bunting made these rather aggressive war machines a little more friendly, and brightened up Queens Wharf.

Seen here through the doors of Shed 10 as I walked away.

An interesting day. You can see how Queens Wharf, linked along to Maritime Museum, across Te Whero, to Wynyard Quarter. Vos Building. Heritage Landing. Such potential for a rich maritime multi-cultural experience. Auckland Authentic.

Diversity in our inshore seas

I had to hunt for a fish picture in my files the other day, and came up with this set of pics which I just had to share. This first one proves that I can be a hunter gatherer. It's been in this blog before, but I need to remind myself just how good King Fish can be - raw, steaks, casserolles.

And in exactly the same bit of water where King Fish roam - off the Mangawhai Bar - I have sometimes seen whales. Quite close sometimes. This is a Bryde's Whale. Last Christmas I saw a Hump Back. It is spectacular that we can see mammals like this so close to Auckland.

This one is in Hamburg. I went there to observe their fantastic people's waterfront. And took time out to visit an Art Gallery.

And this is a Hapuka, or Deep Sea Bass. That's Sail Rock in the back ground.

You never know what you're going to find. That's the magic of fishing. This Little Nemo was happy to be put back.

And this is my favorite. It's an Orca. I took this photo with a 50mm lense film camera - so that gives you an idea how close it came to my boat. Emily and I had launched at Narrow Neck Devonport, and were heading out to the Noisies (you can see them in the background). We were just crossing the Rakino Channel when Emily said, "I think I see something..." I stopped. It was Boxing Day. There was no-one out but us. And then three Killer Whales surfaced. I think a Bull, Cow and Baby. This is the Bull. I was standing in the boat to take this. The dorsal fin was at least a metre tall. What a sight.

Mayor Elect and CEO Talk Committees

Imagine: The election is over and we know who the mayor of Auckland Council is, and who the Councillors and Board Members are. But this Mayor has different powers from previous mayors we have seen. Among other things the Mayor of Auckland Council has the power:

to establish the committees of the governing body;
to appoint the chairperson of each committee of the governing body and, for that purpose, the mayor—
(i) may make the appointment before the other members of the committee are determined; and
(ii) may appoint himself or herself (Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 36-2 (2009))

So let's listen in on the conversation between Doug McKay (Auckland Council's Interim CEO), and the Mayor Elect..... This is an imaginery conversation....

CEO: Congratulations on your result. Welcome to Auckland Council.

Mayor: Thanks Doug. Yep, the people have spoken. Time to get down to business.

CEO: Agreed. My people have prepared substantial briefing materials. Briefing to incoming Council. She's a bit of a beast to get on top of.

Mayor: Tell me about it. But before we do that I want to talk Committees.

CEO: Yep. Thought you would. We've looked at a few options and can go through that analysis with you. We know it's your call. How do you want to play this?

Mayor: I've got a few ideas and had a few conversations but I'm keen to hear what you recommend. How you see it.

CEO: Well we're all set up in here, and up and running as you know. I've got three very good people running Council's Operations, Planning and Finance divisions. They're outside ready to meet you by the way....

Mayor: Saw them on my way in actually. Place has a good feel. You're doing a good job. So give me a flavour. What's your recommendation?

CEO: Well as I say we've had a long hard look at this and I've got a power point I'd like to go through with you, but in summary we think less is more. Three Committees of the whole, Council, and independent commissioners for hearings. That's it in a nutshell. Of course there's always room for a few sub-committees if you saw the need...

Mayor: Less is more. Hmmm. Sub committees. Hmmm. The Council I used to be Mayor of had a hell of a lot more committees than three, and we were responsible for a quarter of what we're doing in here. What makes you think three Committees will cut it?

CEO: Well it's not three Committees when you think about it. There's 21 Boards as well. They'll decide the local stuff. Make the grass-roots decisions. Community Development decisions. And the big decisions around the Waterfront, the Port, Water, Wastewater, Transport, Public Transport - they'll all be well handled by Council's very capable CCO's. As you know.

Mayor: I thought you might say that. But I'll tell you this. I haven't bust a gut getting in here, along with a whole bunch of capable councillors, just to leave decisions to someone else. To a bunch of CCO Boards. And even if I did have some sympathy with your three Committee idea, you can bet your bottom dollar my Councillors won't tolerate being side-lined over major decisions. They won't want to delegate everything to your officers and CCO's - no matter how good they are.

CEO: But you won't be delegating everything. That's the point. Council will decide strategy. Transport strategy, Water strategy, Long Term Council Plan, Spatial Plan, Waterfront Development Strategy, Finance Strategy. Statements of Intent. The lot. That won't be delegated. The CCO's and the Council will then implement those strategies. Your strategies. You will control Council and its CCO's through strategy. And you will monitor our delivery, and CCO deliveries, through reporting that's as detailed as you want it to be.

Mayor: Well I'm not so sure about that. This is a whole different ball game and the public and councillors want to understand better what's going on so they can influence it. I think we need to be looking at some options.

CEO: We can do that. But give me a flavour of what you want. Have you got an example?

Mayor: Well I've taken an interest in Watercare and that's all well and good for trunk sewers and the like, but I can't see how that model - that hands off model - is going to work for transport projects. There's too much public interest and too many different interests when it comes to transport.

CEO: But isn't that the point? Councils haven't done anything because they've been too busy worrying about local concerns. This model reduces that impact on getting things done. I'm not saying Council can hide behind the Transport CCO, while it steamrolls through, but it will have a focus on getting things done. We can open up meetings and be transparent about decisions so people know what's going on. This will free up Councillors so they can concentrate on the Spatial Plan. That really needs political attention, and once it's done then Auckland Transport will be required to implement it. I think it would be a waste of councillor's time if they got into the detail of every roading project and road asset management plans and all that.

Mayor: It sounds great the way you put it. But it ignores the fact that people own land and run businesses and live and go to school and shop by these roads. Roading projects affect them and their assets like nothing else Councils do. It's the whole land use and transport integration thing. You can't fix one without affecting the other. I buy into keeping councillors away from little projects. But they will want to have a say on the big ones. Like Dominion Road, like AMETI, like the Britomart Rail Loop and those new stations. The list is a big one. I'm thinking of something like a delegation. Something like if the value of a transport project is more than $10 million - to pluck a figure out of the air - then Council must be consulted.

CEO: Hmmm. I'll have to get advice on what the law says about this. My understanding is that parliament intended for there to be a strong separation between Council and Auckland Transport juridictions. I think before we go any further with this we need to have a chat with Mark Ford. You OK with that?

Mayor: Absolutely. We need to get this right. No point in rushing now we've got this far.

CEO: OK. I take it you're happy with Watercare then?

Mayor: I'm no expert on it. We have had the odd report back at Council. Once over lightly. But word is everything that's been going on there has been under the public radar for years. No-one really knows what's what. On the face of it looks like a tight ship. The Watercare Shareholder Representative Group has been controlled for years so that Watercare get's what it wants, but who knows if it's the best option. I mean take that water tariff announcement a few weeks ago. $1.30/cubic metre across the region. Everybody pays the same. Has a ring of confidence about it. Everybody likes a cut in rates. I don't know the basis for it. Watercare has a revenue requirement that must be met. I suspect tariffs are just the sort of thing that Council will want to understand and decide. How does that fit with your committee plan?

CEO: These are highly complex technical matters, but I'm sure we can pick them up in the Statement of Intent. Or maybe a Sub Committee when needed.

Mayor: I had a flick through Watercare's SOI before coming in today. Someone gave it to me. Here's what it says about tariffs. Objective 18 is "To ensure that the regime for the pricing of water and wastewater services is enduring, transparent and reliable.".... Fantastic, what does that mean?.... And its performance target - I don't know who writes these things - is: "The pricing methodology enables the revenue to be set to recover all costs and provide for an adequate level of debt servicing."

CEO: What's wrong with that? Sounds sensible to me.

Mayor: It may be sensible, but where in there is the need for a conservation pricing message, where in there is any need to consider developer levies so infrastructure costs get allocated where they are incurred. I suspect the whole thing needs a rethink. Sure business must continue. But you can't expect us all to troop in here and accept everything as a done deal. There is a need in my opinion for us to set up committees which allow the Council to take control of what is happening. Councillors may be happy to accept the status quo - once they understand the options and alternatives. But you can't assume that.

CEO: So where from here?

Mayor: Well I'd like to to see your power point presentation, and I'd like another meeting maybe tomorrow, where I'd like to bring in a few more councillors, and I want to see Committee options which at the very least include a Transport Committee, a Watercare Committee, and a Waterfront Committee. There must also be a Local Board Committee. Councillors need to engage politically with Auckland Council Boards. These are the meaty issues, and I want Committee options that will enable us to get to grips with Auckland local government.

CEO: Hmmm. How about a cuppa tea?

End of imaginery conversation. More later. In another Blog. Maybe.

New Council Committee Conundrum

This blog considers the Committee Structure and Delegations of Auckland Council.

But first little bit of background to flavour and inform this blog....

Doug McKay has been appointed Interim Chief Executive of Auckland Council, and he (with Auckland Transition Agency assistance) has appointed three people to head up the main divisions of Auckland Council:

• the Chief Operating Officer is Patricia Reade, who is currently Deputy Chief Executive (responsible for Work and Income) at the Ministry of Social Development;


• the Chief Planning Officer: Dr Roger Blakeley. He is currently the Chief Executive at Porirua City Council;
  
• and the Chief Financial Officer: Andrew McKenzie, who is currently General Manager of Auckland City Council’s finance division.

So, Auckland Council has been set up with 3 divisions: Operations, Planning and Finance.

This contrasts with existing arrangements, which I am not going to look at chapter and verse, but take Manukau City council for example. Its CEO has 6 direct reports:

• Strategy - Grant Taylor;


• Economic - Rick Walden;


• Environment - Ree Anderson;


• Community - Ian Maxwell;


• Finance - Dave Foster;


• Organisational Performance - Robyn McCulloch.

A typical ratepayer might look at this and wonder who is responsible for the big ticket items of council expenditure which are roads, water, wastewater, and planning. In MCC's case you can find roads and transport under "Economic", but you can't find water and wastewater anywhere in its organisation chart. Unless, that is, you find CCOs, and there you will find "Manukau Water" (and several other CCOs).

It requires some local government knowledge to dig further into the MCC website to understand the political structure of MCC. I found a page which provides this information:

• Council meets monthly;


• Policy and Activities committee meets weekly for the first three weeks of the month;


• Grants and Events sub-committee meets monthly;


• Accountability and Performance committee meets quarterly;


• Audit and Risk sub-committee meets quarterly;


• Environmental Hearings Committee meets monthly;


• Te Tiriti O Waitangi Committee meets monthly.

However, if you were interested in wastewater - say - or even roads, you would still be none the wiser from looking at this list, as to which committee actually makes decisions about roads or wastewater, and which committee was accountable for decisions made about wastewater and/or transport.

The key word here is: delegations.

Under the Local Government Act it is Council (I mean Full Council) that has the power to do things and decide things, but it can decide to delegate powers and responsibilities to its own Committees, or - now - to Council Controlled Organisations, and also to its Chief Executive and to senior staff. This is a fundamental administrative nicety. Delegations are very important. It defines and determines who makes what decisions.

My experience has been this (and I've seen it now 4 times): One of the first things that happens when a new Council is elected, is that Council officers, under the leadership of the Chief Executive Officer, try for the maximum amount of delegated power to be transferred away from the political arm of council, to its corporate or executive arm. You can understand why. Officers worry that political meddling could muck up their careful plans for how ratepayer money should be allocated, what projects have priority, and so on.

Immediately post-election, councillors and the mayor stroll into office expecting to be able to implement their campaign brochure promises (new councillors), expecting to be able to change the system to better implement their expectations and goals (seasoned and committed councillors), and hoping and angling for a chair position. In short it's a bit of a bun fight which officers are easily able to exploit.

In the case of Manukau City Council, you can see this beginning to happen at the council meeting that was held on the 30th October 2007, just a couple of weeks after councillors were sworn into the new term. An item on the Council agenda reads like this:

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NEW TRIENNIUM

Two options for governance arrangements are contained in Appendix “A”. The first option is based on a committee of the whole of Council meeting weekly with Portfolio Leaders taking leadership roles. Proposed delegations to Committees under the first option are contained in Appendix “B”, should the Council decide to adopt this option.

The second option modifies the previous committee structure by reducing the number of committees. Delegations under the second option, will reflect a reduced committee structure and a detailed set of delegations will be available for the meeting.

I have been unable to find either of these appendicees on Manukau City Council's website. But the meeting minutes give a flavour of what happened. Here is an extract:

MINUTE NO. CL/OCT/1663/07 – HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR/CR SU’A WILLIAM SIO
1. That a governance structure with delegations, membership, meeting times and quorums as detailed in Appendix B, as amended, and having the following
components be adopted:
(i) a “Policy and Activities Committee”, comprising of the Mayor and all
councillors, meeting weekly for three weeks each month and having a
smaller “Grants and Events Funding Subcommittee”;
(ii) an “Environmental Hearings” Committee, comprising nine members
dealing with hearings relating to environmental matters and with
enforcement issues, meeting monthly and as required for hearings;
(iii) “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” Committee, comprising nine elected members and
nine appointed members, meeting monthly;
(iv) an “Accountability and Performance Committee”, comprising the Mayor
and all councillors, meeting quarterly to receive and consider reports on
performance against the Annual Plan and having a smaller “Audit and
Risk Subcommittee”;
(v) a “Tenders Panel” dealing with contracts and other panels dealing with
CCOs and Executive Review;
(vi) a weekly Forum being held, with the opportunity for public attendance
as appropriate, to provide for informal work-shopping, including
receiving presentations and information items;
(vii) six “Portfolio Leaders” to provide leadership and to represent the
Council in terms of defined portfolio areas, in addition to a Portfolio
Area “Regional Sustainable Development” assigned to the Mayor and
Deputy Mayor.

Don't worry, it gets more interesting. Persist. If you read that minute quickly, you get the impression that it is all to do with committees, committee structures, how many councillors attend meetings, and so on. But that's not the real thrust of this Council decision at all. If you look closely at the first sentence, what it really says is this:

That a governance structure with delegations ... as detailed in Appendix B ... be adopted.

That's what this meeting and decision was really about. And if you look at the minutes of that meeting, Appendix B is attached (I was pleased to find it).

The current political decision-making structure of Manukau City Council dates back to the 2004-2007 term, when it set up a cluster of CCOs including Manukau Water. This structure, and the way decisions are taken, has been enshrined in these delegations (set out in Appendix B) since then. Councillors elected in 2007 had the opportunity to change any/all of those arrangements, but chose not to. This is important to appreciate because the establishment of council committees and their decision-making delegations (powers) fundamentally shapes how the council functions and what it allows itself to do.

You can have a read yourself of Manukau's delegations in these minutes. Scroll to the end to find that appendix. I want, here, to draw your attention to a critical matter.

Manukau's Policy and Activities Committee appears to have the most power. It deals with these areas: City Form & Environment; Safe City; Transport; Community Services; Economy; Regional Sustainable Development:

General purpose:
The Policy and Activities Committee will focus on policy but will also deal with any matters requiring political decision-making relating to Council’s activities and business that are not delegated elsewhere.
Areas of responsibility:
Policies, strategies, external relations, governance, property. All policy and strategy matters. This includes: Community outcomes including Tomorrows Manukau; LTCCP and Annual Plan (including the hearing of submissions); District Plan; Regional Governance; Policy programme; External relationships, including LGNZ, ARC, Government, appointment of representatives on other bodies; Purchase and disposal of strategic property in accordance with the LTCCP; Governance issues relating to the Council, Community Boards and CCOs. (Noting that final adoption of a formal policy or strategy is by recommendation to full Council.)

So, the key decisions of this committee are recommendations to a full council meeting, but that is typically a rubber stamp formaility. This committee is also able to sign off expenditure items in excess of $5,000,000 - which exceeds the procurement delegation to the Chief Executive. While this committee is powerful, what is of considerable interest are the delegations to the Accountability and Performance Committee which has "a monitoring and scrutiny focus". These are set out like this:

Areas of responsibility:
(i) Monitoring performance against the LTCCP / Annual Plan
(ii) Performance issues involving the Ombudsmens Office or the Auditor-General
(iii) Receiving and considering statements of Intent, and half yearly and annual reports from CCO’s
Powers:
All powers relating to the Committee’s purpose and areas of responsibility which are not retained by Council, otherwise delegated, or required by statute to be exercised only by the Council.

The key thing to note is that all matters to do with CCO's are dealt with by the Accountability and Performance Committee, while all matters to do with Policy Strategy are dealt with by another committee.

You might think this is a sensible and efficient way to deal with matters. I beg to differ, and I think Auckland Council needs to seriously rethink this. In my last term on North Shore City Council - as chair of Works and Environment - Councillors dealt with all policy matters to do with Transport and Wastewater at one meeting: projects, prioritisation, planning, performance. This provided for joined up thinking and decisions. In my first term as Chair of Transport Policy at ARC, that committee had the challenging relationship of ARTA (the regional CCO responsible for public transport service provision) to handle. Committee decisions included: Transport Policy, Transport Budgets, ARTA Statement of Intent consideration; Quarterly reports and issue reporting; and so on. That Committee handled all elements of public transport. The exception being the setting of the annual transport rate which was decided with full council.

Then in 2007 things changed at ARC, reflecting the decision model and delegations structure adopted by Manukau City Council. The delegations relating to the Statement of Intent for ARTA, and Quarterly reporting etc, all shifted to ARC's Finance Committee. No longer was it possible for there to be an integrated consideration of public transport strategy, policy, funding, priorities and performance. Decision-making became fragmented, and I would argue, less effective, and less accountable.

I have written to Grant Taylor at Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) because he is in charge there of designing Auckland Council's "Democracy Services". I have sought information about work that is being done at ATA to inform decisions about Auckland Council's committee structure and the delegations of those committees. The equivalent of Appendix A and Appendix B that were presented to Manukau City Councillors at their first Council meeting in 2007.

But he has advised me by email (30th August 2010) the following:

No reports have been prepared yet for or by ATA re committee structures.

The Governance workstream is preparing an induction program and material for the governing body and local boards. Doug McKay and his executive team will also be preparing for briefings of the incoming council.

The ATA has responsibility for preparing a report to Parliament at the end of of its existence (the ATA's that is) on its activities. In conjunction with the work for that report, information and recommendations arising out of all workstreams are being assembled for the incoming council.

I am aware that the legislation establishing Auckland Council, Local Boards, and CCO's prescribes with precision what Auckland Council can change (and what it can't). However incoming Councillors will carry the expectations of Aucklanders on their shoulders and will rightly expect to be able to make a difference and influence outcomes. It will not be appropriate for a committee and delegations structure to be imposed that restricts and confines the thinking and capability of that Council. It is essential to empower the council and its committees, and to enable integrated decision-making across the whole scope of its responsibilities.

CCOs Able To Run Themselves

In all of the criticism of Auckland's current local government regime there was a popular line that Auckland already had a heap of CCOs (I think 45 was the number mentioned), and that was (a) a good reason to have CCOs, and (b) a good reason to have fewer CCOs.

This week we learned who Central Government has appointed to those fewer, but bigger CCOs. As I went through the names a recurring thought came to me. It was that many of the names are the very people who should have stood for election to Auckland Council. They have the skills, experience and political nous - many of them - to make a contribution on Council - but they had neither the inclination, nor the time, to seek a popular mandate.

That thought also made me look at the people I know who are on CCOs now (like ARTA - the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the Waitakere CCO that has over seen New Lynn, and Manukau's land development CCO). These appointees are experts in their fields. They are there to implement the policies of their respective governing councils. They are the last people to think of standing for council. It's not their strength. They work to a a strategic policy set by elected councillors, working with officers. These policies come through Statements of Intent and the like, but the key point I make here, is that these CCO director skills are often drawn from business life and they are on CCOs to implement council policies in an efficient and workmanlike way.

They are not there to set or determine Council policy. That is not their experience, nor their expertise, though Board Members may learn some of those skills with time. They were not appointed, nor needed, for their policy development or policy governance skills. They were appointed because of their skills at implementation, and acting cost-effectively.

In contrast, what I see in common among many of the great and the good appointments to Auckland's big and new CCOs is a lot of governance experience, a lot of political experience, and quite a lot of political reward. What I don't see is the kind of experience that was common among Auckland's previous CCO's - implementation skills and relevant on-the-ground experience.

By way of example. Sea + City is generally seen as a success. Certainly my experience of it has been of a learning organisation that has responded to pressures and public will responsibly and with integrity. The S + C Board is well populated with relevant implementation skills and experience - urban planning, design, waterfront industry - and suchlike. But those skills and that experience has been passed over for the new Waterfront Development Agency CCO. Oh dear yes. This Board is a terminated board. The new WDA apppointees have fallen over themselves to get appointed. The S+C experience and workmanlike approach has not met the cut for selection. Everybody loves the waterfront. Such fun. Man oh man.

And because these CCOs are going to be chaired by, and populated by many who have their own governance and political opinions about how things should be done - rather than being appointed for relevant technical expertise - the question has to be asked: do these CCOs need a Council at all?

Surely. With such appointees they can run themselves. They certainly have the individuals appointed there who would like to run them themselves. Without interference.

The danger is that the nature of these CCO beasts is that they are set up for a fight with Council. The reasonable expectation of these CCOs is that their directors have been appointed because they know best. And that they are there to protect the future of Auckland from the risk of Council decisions that go against the grain of "we who know best". The tragedy of democracy.

The people vote for who they want on Council at this local election, but those councillors will have little control over those who will really run Auckland, and who have been appointed to do just that, by Rodney Hide and Central Government.

Auckland Water Tariffs

On Monday, with a big fanfare, The Hon Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government announced Auckland's new water tariffs. We have been expecting a "win". The Government, and all the champions of Auckland's restructuring have been anxiously looking forward to a "win", amongst all the problematic news of redundancies, candidate quality, and such-like.
This next table lists the old prices/cubic metre of water, and the new prices inc GST.

Auckland Area	Tariff at October 2010	New Tariff at July 2011
Orewa and Whangaparaoa	$2.33*	$1.30
Metrowater	$1.81*	$1.30
Waitakere	$1.74	$1.30
North Shore	$1.52	$1.30
Manukau	$1.31	$1.30

No information or analysis accompanied this announcement whose details will have been carefully worked through by Watercare Services Ltd, and agreed by its Board of Directors, and subject to the scrutiny of Auckland Transition Agencies Board of Directors.

But where was the public consideration of alternative pricing options?

Is this unilateral approach the sign of things to come? We at Watercare know best and we'll impose it?

There are several very substantial policy questions that this announcement rides rough-shod over, in the interests of getting a rare smile from the public, and I will canvass briefly here, a few of them:

1) Water tariffs are problematic. Higher prices encourage conservation and defer the need for capital investment in new supply (new dams, new pipelines). Lower prices encourage wasteful use. But higher prices hit those on low incomes and with large families. Means tested support is deployed elsewhere in the world, so that the conservation economic benefits are available, while ensuring that adequate water is available for those on lower incomes. Many cities also routinely use progressive pricing. This means you pay less/cubic metre for your first 200 cubic metres of water in a year (say), and then progressively more /cubic metre for large users (such as those who refill swimming pools several times a year, and those with several high volume showers in the house).

2) This "water services only" announcement immediately undermines one of the main goals of the restructuring which was to achieve integration of water services, and related savings and "big picture" benefits. Everybody appreciates that "water in" equals "water out" - that the more water that is used, the more wastewater that is generated and which needs to be reticulated at great cost along sewer lines to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment and disposal. I was impressed with Mayoral candidate John Banks proposal that homeowners be offered the choice of a fixed annual charge for wastewater services (which would suit a big user of water), or a metered charge for wastewater services (which would suit pensioner couples and other small households using small amounts of water). This was integrated thinking. He was connecting up water and wastewater pricing. Watercare's "water services only" announcement invites cynical criticism. Watercare obviously needs a certain revenue flow to cover its whole operations cost - water and wastewater - and you can bet your bottom dollar that if water services revenue falls (because of the significant cost cuts that have been offered), then these falls will simply be recouped by ratcheting up waterwater charges when they are announced later. This is a manipulative and political announcement which is disappointing and does not augur well for the future.

3) Water's cheap. Use more. The message in big water tariff cuts completely undermines the message that Watercare, and the Councils - especially Waitakere City Council, have been advocating for years - and that is to conserve water use, use water carefully. This is highly counter-productive. It risks gobbling up the existing supply Auckland has built up (dams plus Waiakto Pipeline in dry times), and bringing forward the need to build new supply. Again, cynically, I can see that a calculation has been done that because people will feel free to use more water - because it's cheaper - that the net result could be for Watercare that the revenue from increased use will more or less make up the revenue gap risk from reduced tariffs.

4) Missed regional development levies for new supply and new water mains opportunity. The simplistic message in "water's suddenly got cheap with supercity", undermines the opportunity to communicate the option that Watercare will now collect revenue for new supply, for new infrastructure, from development levies, rather than over-charging existing users in their water rates. This approach would create a new revenue source for Watercare to pay for infrastructure that benefits new development and developers. This would be a rational and fair reason for reducing water tariffs for existing users who currently subsidise infrastructure needs caused by others. This would be a good opportunity to justify shifting new water supply infrastructure costs onto those who incur them - rather than expecting all water rate payers to subsidise new development.

5) Regional variation. It is assumed that it is somehow right and good and proper that every ratepayer in Auckland should now pay exactly the same for water services. In fact Auckland's water systems and networks vary considerably in quality and capacity. North Shore City has invested substantially in past years - at ratepayer expense - at replacing old iron water mains with new higher capacity water mains. There has not been an argument advanced by Watercare in support of "regional uniformity" and for "regional consistency". On paper it looks good, but in fact some areas have invested more heavily in their infrastructure than others - for whatever reason - and to gloss over that fact without public justification lacks equity. I accept that differences are less obvious with water supply (though they are tangible - and Auckland City's problems with ancient infrastructure are well known), but there are major differences when it comes to sewer network investment across the region. I suspect that the regional uniformity approach that we see here with water services will be steamrolled out for wastewater charges and suchlike. This might make it easier for Watercare's bean counters and billing systems, but rides rough shod over past rate payer investments and real regional differences.

More thoughts will come to mind. But this is not rocket science. Many cities have been through this process before. It can be a very positive and progressive process. Or it can be reductionist - as we see here - and disappointing.

Moving the Birdcage Hotel

I was driving past the Birdcage yesterday (not on my bike!) on my way home from an ARC meeting, as I was forced down the detour now in place while crucial parts of the Victoria Park flyover and tunnel project proceed. And there was a lot of people watching. I was stopped by the lights and took this snap on my cellphone. TV was much better. But I liked the attention of these young skate-boarders. The pub will be shifted twice: now up Franklin Rd on a slight angle to the south to avoid street trees while the tunnel is being built and then three to four months later back to its original site above the tunnel's roof.

The following info I gleaned from a June NZ Herald article:

Work is well-advanced to strengthen it for the shift, bolting 1.8cm thick plywood to walls, steel reinforcing rods being run through the bricks and building new structural walls on the exterior.

Those walls are rising atop the existing brick plaster-clad walls on three sides of the building.

The structural walls will help hold the hotel together ready for the move and in case of earthquakes.

Thornton said that towards the end of the job, plaster would be applied over the top of the reinforcing so the walls would appear as they did before any of the work started.

But the basement is a big focus for the workforce now, with excavations around exterior and interior walls.

The ground floor has been gutted from the inside to allow access to the footings and for structural strengthening.

Brick walls are being vertically stressed with high-tensile bars inserted through holes core-drilled from the top of the building, then tightened up.

The rear non-heritage walls of the building are being coated with reinforcing concrete so these act as sheer bracing walls.

Carbon fibre reinforcing strips are being inserted into the chimney walls to provide seismic strengthening.

Concrete sandwich beams are being inserted under the building and those will soon sit on top of sliding bearings that will carry the Rob Roy along runway beams to its new temporary home and back again.

To transfer the building load on to the runway beams, hydraulic flat jacks will be inserted between the sandwich beams and the runway beams at 14 points, Thornton said.

These jacks will be monitored every metre to ensure that all points of the building remain level as it moves, he said.

Beneath each flat jack will be a sliding bearing made of a low-friction Teflon puck that will slide along a stainless steel strip fixed to the top surface of each runway beam.

The jacks will be incrementally loaded until the building's entire weight is transferred from its existing foundations on to the new beam system, Thornton said.

Irving said the building was not being lifted up. Hydraulic pushing rams will be installed between the building and the runway beams to provide the moving force. Each stroke of the rams will move the building forward by about 1.5m at a time.

While the tunnel is built under its original site, the Rob Roy will sit on temporary foundations 40m up Franklin Rd.

The transport process will be repeated when the building is moved back after the tunnel construction.

So. Engineers can do anything. And about time we took heritage seriously, as well as urban design around these massive state highway projects. About time they were shoe-horned into the city fabric, rather than the city being demolised to make way for the roadway. Good on you Richard Reid (Landscape Architect) who advocated tirelessly for this approach to the Birdcage.

Do you know a Chocolate Teapot?

This is a story about a Strategic Transport Planner who was employed by North Shore City council to develop its Transport Strategy. The story goes back to about 2002 when I was chair of NSCC's Works and Environment Committee. I had become frustrated by the lack of a Transport Strategy when trying to implement changes that supported cycling and public transport, instead of, or ahead of, road widening projects for cars. The General Manager of NSCC's Transport division told me that NSCC needed a transport strategy, before the council could usefully engage with priority changes for transport spending. After about a year's looking, I was advised that there were no Strategic Transport Planners in New Zealand. So NSCC cast the net wider and looked in Australia, and then in South Africa. It was in the course of the South Africa search that we found Pete Clarke - or maybe Pete Clarke found us. Anyway. We snapped him up. But he wasn't a Strategic Transport Planner, and so we kept on looking. Our search extended into the Northern hemisphere, and a few names came up. I remember Geoff Mason was sent over to interview the likely ones. And we recruited Howard. Howard was a Strategic Transport Planner from a city in the north of England. He'd worked in Lancashire and Huddersfield and places like that. (Said in a broad Northern accent of course). The first thing he did when he got here was to buy a house - or try and buy a house - in East Coast Bays. he came out with his wife. The next thing he did was prepare a wonderful colour consultation brochure - I'm sure I could find one in my archives if I looked really hard - but not successful so far. It was circulated throughout North Shore - or maybe a part of North Shore - I can't remember. It asked for feedback about the kind of city people wanted. Was it one with widened roads (picture), or was it one with more of a village feel, with people walking, cycling. You get the picture. The result was predictable. There was massive support for the village feel with good PT, cycling and walking. So he got on with preparing the strategy. At least that's what I though he was doing. Months went past and nothing came onto my committee agenda. I asked the General Manager about it, and got non-committal answers....

Then there was a staff leaving do, and I was in attendance. Howard was there to, so I took him aside and asked him what was happening. He looked pained, and after a pause he said to me, "Joel. I feel like a chocolate teapot around here...". With that Northern accent. I had never heard the phrase before, and had to think what he meant. He expanded on his point... "We have staff meetings in here, where we discuss things and priorities, and when I mention what I think we should be doing on the North Shore they just look at me. I don't get any support..." Basically he was frozen out. The car culture of NSCC's Traffic engineers was overwhelming. The idea that you could manage traffic flows by using road space differently was alien to them. Their university training was all about road building, road speeds, camber, all that sort of thing. Supply management. Not demand management. It was really sad. Because he was saying the right things - I thought - but the culture, the way we do things around here, was very strong. After a few months Howard sold his house, packed his bags and he and his wife went back to North England. I hope he's happy there. I am worried that we risk creating a culture in our new Auckland Council where the spirit of innovation and creativity that we will need to change Auckland's sprawling habits and wasteful ways won't take root. To get the best people, those knowledge workers with ideas, we need to provide a working environment and working culture that feeds them. It's not too late. We don't need talented people made to feel like chocolate teapots in Auckland Council.

"Crap Tax" to buy off Puketutu Tangata Whenua?

You can tell, can't you, that this blog is going to be a crap one.

Having been immersed in North Shore City's sewage for the best part of 6 years while I was a councillor there, and having been involved as a commissioner consenting an extension to Watercare's current disposal to Pond 2 Landfill in the Manukau Harbour, I have learned a lot about what we do here in Auckland, and what they do in more civilised parts of the world.

The United Nations Environment Programme has spent time analysing this issue too. They have produced An Introductory Guide To Decision-Makers, entitled: Biosolids Management: An Environmentally Sound Approach for Managing Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge. The introduction to this guide is helpful and brief:

"...Throughout North America and Europe, the application of biosolids to land is continuing to increase. As shown in Table 1, current biosolids applications to agricultural land in Europe and North America has become significant.
Although biosolids disposal in a landfill site is common, it should not be viewed as a long term solution. This option is considered to be environmentally beneficial only when such disposal includes methane gas recovery for application as a fuel. Modern landfills are complex and costly facilities to build and operate. They must be carefully engineered and monitored to ensure protection of both groundwater and surface water. In many locations, accessible, long-term landfill capacity is limited. Engineering and siting requirements can make the construction of new landfills prohibitively expensive. Most importantly, landfill disposal does not take advantage of the nutrient value and soil-building properties of biosolids, and takes up landfill space that can be better used for other materials. However, landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste and municipal authorities are unable to monitor and control industrial discharges...."

This table is salutory. Auckland puts 100% of our biosolids in a landfill. Quite close to Greece at 97%. But the OECD average (based on this country list) is 43%. We would quite like NZ to shoot up the OECD charts when it comes to GDP, but we're quite happy it seems, to languish at the bottom of the list when it comes to crap. Makes our slogan and brand "100% Pure" seem a bit hollow doesn't it? But it's the last sentence in that quote above that you need to stare at: "...landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste..." Sydney is a great example of a city that has gone to great lengths to get industrial waste out of its sewers. Metals like Chromium, Mercury, Zinc, Lead and Copper are all banned from Sydney sewers. I've seen Sydney's biosolids mixed with green waste, composted, and used as soil conditioner. But we can't do that with our biosolids because we contaminate them. Here in Auckland we actually make money from dumping industrial wastes into our drains. Or to more precise, Watercare Services Ltd makes money from it. Under Auckland's ancient system of trade waste permits, polluters are able to tip their industrial wastes down the drain, pay a fee to Watercare, and she'll be right mate. Don't you worry about it anymore. We'll sort it out, and thanks for the fee. So Third World. So banana republic.....

The revenue stream that Watercare collects from Trade Waste fees is a nice little earner. Subsidises all sorts of other activities and that's probably a good thing. But it means that Watercare has an excuse not to do the right thing. It has to find a hole in the ground to put Auckland's crap - albeit processed, methane extracted, partly dried, and lime added.

The problem for Watercare, and for Auckland, is that the Pond 2 Landfill in Manukau Harbour is filling up, and so Watercare applied for consent on 10 November 2008 to put Auckland's biosolids in a quarry on Puketutu Island in the Manukau harbour. There's been lots of news about this in NZ Herald, and there are other blogs of mine about it.

Commissioners hearing the consent application declined it. Among their reasons were:

(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;

(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance of regional significance. These effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;

(c) The properties of biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required...

And so it goes on. Needless to say, Watercare has appealed this decision, and the matter is in front of the Environment Court. Mediation proceedings are underway...

In the background there have been a number of curious games underway. One of these has the ARC taking over the Island when the quarry has been filled up, and turning it into a Regional Park. This suggestion has the ARC getting the park for nothing. There is a little conflict of interest of course - because it's the ARC that's one of the consenting authorities for Watercare's biosolids disposal application.

The other game is one between iwi and Watercare. ARC has been kept a little bit in the loop about this, and I understand Watercare wants to come and talk to us about their updated plan in a few weeks. However all of this is happening far below the public radar, and I think it stinks.

Watercare is acting independently, unaccountably, though it will argue it is acting in Auckland's best interests. Across Auckland there is enormous pressure to resolve outstanding court appeals and environment court proceedings. (I think that some of these have lingered far too long and lawyers have got rich out of delays in resolution.)

But is it right that the process of transition to one Auckland Council should mean that an issue like the long term management of Auckland's biosolids should be rushed through in a quick expedient settlement? I don't think so. I think we need to clean up our act, and this is the time to be doing it.

However, and this is the nub of this blog, on Thursday 15 April, 2010, Watercare Services Ltd, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Incorporated, and Makaurau Marae maori Trust Incorporated (the parties) signed a document entitled Puketutu Island Heads of Agreement.

Among other things the parties agreed that:

• Puketutu Island is to be owned by Tangata Whenua;


• There will be an operating licence fee of $2 per tonne (plus GST if any) of biosolids placed there, for 30 years;


• The operating licence fee is to be ring-fenced for Tangata Whenua;


• Parties to agree that Environment Court appeals to be resolved by consent order...

So that is the price of "...the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the island..."

Two dollars for every tonne of crap dumped there. A maori crap tax.