Business Booms at Watercare

The large newspaper advertisements in NZ Herald today, and the stormwater story earlier in the week, are shots across the bow of unsuspecting Auckland public.

The newspaper advertisments described Watercare's new charges for water and wastewater, and for residential and business ratepayers. Of course it has always been deeply ironic that the "One Council, One Bill" rhetoric was never ever going to be true. The re-organisation was always intended to allow Watercare to be a law unto itself, with its own computer system of residential and business ratepayers, and with its own business model and charging system. It is now almost stand-alone.

Watercare has embraced Central Government's business growth model with both hands. Watercare is now well placed to be sold off as a going concern, taking a sizeable chunk of Auckland Council's debt with it, and the promise of some very large, well funded, centralised network infrastructure projects.

The devil here - is behind the detail in Watercare's media release.

There are a few things that need to be aired, that are hard to discern readily in the Council's Ten Year Plan, which is the shop window on what Watercare plans:

1) I support the fact that Watercare can now charge residential ratepayers for their wastewater services on a volumetric basis. This will provide an economic incentive for water consumers to manage their consumption of water.

2) But these changes do not apply to business customers. We see in Watercare's public statement that "existing arrangements will apply...". While these are to some extent volumetric, their main purpose is to allow businesses to tip contaminants and trade wastes into the sewer, where they mix with ordinary sewage, ensuring that the cocktail that finally arrives at Mangere is completely untreatable for re-use. So Watercare is perpetuating an outdated system, which provides little incentive for Auckland business to clean up its act at source, and generates a nice little earner for Watercare. The resulting biosolids are too contaminated to be reused as soil conditioner, and must be landfilled. Hence Watercare's desire to continue its business oriented dumping operation by landfilling the biolsolids at Puketutu. (I have walked on the existing biosolids landfills in Manukau Harbour. These are not happy places.)

3) The Council's Team Year Plan includes the debt level for the Auckland Council Group - ie Council, plus Council Controlled Organisations - including Watercare. The debt level that Council has voted for is close to $13 billion - almost 3x what it is now. It appears that around $3 to $4 billion of that debt is Watercare debt. Part of the increase in that debt will be the proposed $800 million "Central Interceptor" project - the huge pipe/storage system to be dug under Auckland, allowing business as usual activity to occur, and to allow for more of it.

Councillors should not be allowing Watercare to hide this burgeoning centralised network of water and wastewater infrastructure - on the basis that the bills for it reduce Council's own rates bill, and on the basis that "they can blame Watercare...not us".

Watercare's practice is increasingly unsustainable. It is already the biggest user of electricity in Auckland - because of its need for pumping of water and wastewater, and for the electricity intensive, centralised treatment plants that it operates.

The fact that Auckland Council has to deal with stormwater, now that Watercare successfully separated the meter-paid waters, further exacerbates this trend. I await with interest the debate over the stormwater disposal charges that Watercare will levy on the Council, when Council seeks to divert pesky stormwater flows into Watercare's Central Interceptor. Another nice little earner for Watercare.

Smarter Governance for a Smarter Auckland

Today I delivered a presentation at the Rendevous Hotel to the Smart Cities Summit Conference. I was asked to speak about the sort of governance and leadership that Auckland needs - across the Region. And to speak about whether the governance reforms will deliver. These are a few slides and words from that presentation. They cover issues in Auckland City and North Shore City...

I used the example of Mexico to begin. Mexico has a reputation for poor air quality and a lot of other environmental bads. But their streets and communities are dynamic with life and energy.

This is a typical Mexico arterial street. I know it's an old city, but what a great streetscape. Sure the air looks pretty unhealthy.

But the back streets and communities are dynamic with life and energy. A lot of attention given to public spaces without cars and traffic. Interesting.

When you come back to Auckland it strikes you what it's like here - in the hearts of our cities. This is the heart of Manukau City as seen from the air on the way to land. It's really just a huge car park. Not a great people place...

And then when you do get back to North Shore, you can't ignore the fact we have some "bad air days" of our own in Auckland. And it's not because of winter fires. It's because of our dependence on, and heavy use of motor vehicles...

This is an aerial view of where Northcote Road crosses State Highway 1 on the North Shore. The uses of the land are labelled. To get between them you really need to drive. It's a car oriented design. It's not for pedestrians or cyclists. A lot of the North Shore has been designed this way.

It's one of the reasons the Auckland Region developed a Growth Strategy. To stop sprawl, and to establish much better quality urban environments. The idea was to encourage better quality density development around centres, and corridors, but to leave other parts free of infill development so the leafy character remains. This picture is from the strategy. It shows what the vision was supposed to be for Centres....

But these pictures show the reality of residential development in downtown Auckland. Very poor amenity compared to the vision. Disappointing - both for the people who live there, and setting a bad example for other places to copy. Not exemplary. And leaky building construction adds further injury...

Another part of the strategy has been Corridor Development. Aimed at streets like Taharoto, Wairau, Dominion, Sandringham - for example. These are served by quality bus transport. Others are close to railway lines....

This is a bad example from Auckland/West Auckland. Nobody really wants to live next to a railway line that looks like this. Nothing like the strategy. Poor amenity and lowest quality urban design. We can do better, and we need to do better...

This picture shows an aerial view of Highbury, on the North Shore. Highbury is a village and centre that was built long before the Harbour Bridge was built. It is a classic "english" town design. It has good main streets with shops and cafes, it also has commercial and light industrial areas which offer employment opportunities, there are green spaces and other public facilities (like a library). And as you can see, residential development is close enough so people can walk to the shops and to work...

But this is not how the new parts of North Shore have been developed. This is part of the Albany development. To the right is the Rosedale Industrial Estate, and to the left is new residential subdivision. This is a classic single use zoning. No mixed use. No walkable relationship between different uses. This is a negative change to car based living, because of its reduction in pedestrian and cycling based living and amenity. We need to do better....

Water, wastewater, and stormwater are issues for Auckland and for North Shore - where these images were taken. Flooding and erosion are issues when it rains. Yet - like last summer - when it's dry then we seem to not have enough water!

North Shore's steep topography means when it rains hard, water finds overland flow paths, and goes downhill at great speed. Down driveways, along fences, damming up and causing floods as it goes...

And then finally, what's left after the floods, discharges at great velocity into stream beds (causing damage and erosion and scouring), and finally into the the sea - often at beautiful beaches. Like here at Takapuna. Stormwater eventually needs to get to the sea, but the pathways its takes, and the damage done on the way, need to be carefully managed.

But it's not all bad.... North Shore City Council is a leader in the Auckland region at managing water in a 3 water way. This means storing stormwater in detention tanks, for reuse, but also to slow its flow when it rains hard. Slow it down in those short, peak 15 minute downpours. The strategy is also about keeping stormwater out of sewer pipes, so they don't discharge. And those old straight concrete drains and pipes are giving way to softer, more attractive approaches which slow water down and provide storage, rather than approaches based around high flow rates...

There is some high quality urban design around corridor and station development. This station development at Newmarket marries a railway station with great urban design, new shops, public open piazza spaces, and high quality medium density housing for those people wanting to live closer to the action, but unable to afford an expensive freehold house.

And across the Auckland Region there is a concerted approach to provide improved and safe cycle infrastructure, so Auckland's potential for this form of transport can be realised, along with the change in look and feel of town centres. They come to life when more people come and go by bike or on the footpath. But they must be safe.

This simple table illustrates what Councils do, the activity areas, and the legislation that directs council activities. Good governance depends on three things: good staff; good councillors, and good legislation. Without all three it's difficult to make positive changes to the look and feel of Auckland's urban landscapes and our town centres and streets.

This picture is from the Government document: "Making Auckland Greater", which led to the legislation that will abolish existing councils including North Shore City Council, and Auckland Regional Council - and establish a single supercity council. This will have a set of CCOs to provide key services like transport and water services. But there are major questions about the new supercity.

For example: how integrated will all this be? Will the new legislation lead to better outcomes? Is it more likely that the good things in the old Growth Strategy can finally be delivered more reliably? This diagram shows one of the problems with what has been proposed. Council "3 water" services will be split up. The Watercare CCO will only provide water and wastewater services, and stormwater will be provided alone by Auckland Council. This is a very disappointing disintegration.

There was more in my presentation about these aspects. However a lot of faith is being put in a new spatial plan to solve problems around integration and implementation. But it could just be a fashion. A planning fad. Check out the blog below for more on the spatial plan. This was published in NZ Herald on 29th June. And there's more on this blog about spatial planning....

Questions: ATA's Structure for Auckland Council...

Good to see something from ATA that's more substantial than a suggestion we need a competition to design a SuperCity logo....

There is a lot to digest in this 30 page document which covers:

• draft organisation change;
• draft scope of workforce change (?!);
• draft protocols and processes....

I've skimmed it, and what follows is my take about the bits that jump out, plus a few questions that beg to be asked along the way. I understand that submissions from Auckland's Councils are expected before 24th November. First - the immediate questions, then the points that arise, and throughout a few scenario thoughts....

Q1: When will Auckland Council (AC) - the organisation - actually start? It appears from this document that the new Auckland Council will be up and running well before the election on October 30th 2010. This is probably not a surprise. So. When?

Q2: What other CCOs (other than Watercare, Transport Agency, Waterfront Agency), are being proposed?

Q3: Where does the policy and management around stormwater go (document is silent)?

Q4: What date does ATA think the Auckland Council service delivery restructure - assumed to happen sometime after 1 November - will be completed?

Q5: The document states: "...the Auckland Council will not simply replicate the current practices...within existing councils". How does that square with another statement: "...it is likely that .... the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." ?

Q6: What additional CCO's does ATA consider would be appropriate for Auckland, and has it sought a government mandate to implement those new CCO's?

Q7: Where is it proposed to relocate the Auckland Transport Agency? Will Watercare remain located where it is? What about the Waterfront Agency? Is ATA interested in ensuring there is good communication and dialogue between Auckland Council and its CCO's, or is it keen to put as much distance - control-wise and every-other-wise - between Auckland Council and the CCO's it is being set up to govern?

Draft Organisation Change

(1) Interesting that it is proposed that "AC's Interim Chief Executive" will have direct control over: communications; human resources; risk (undefined) and emergency management. These functions will not be reported to a General Manager. The document states: "post-transition it is expected these arrangements would be reviewed..."

(2) Probably the most revealing.... "while preliminary planning is underway, it is likely that upon establishment, the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." So. The SuperCity restructure is really about governance restructure, and not about service delivery restructure. Thought so. But here it is in writing.

(3) The reason or excuse for (2) has already been publicly stated and that is that service delivery should be "seamless after 1 November". Wow. So it's change - but no change... It's change to governance, but no change to service delivery... The document goes on to state: "... service delivery will change following the development and adoption of consistent and integrated service strategy and progressive integration of systems...". All that some time after 1 November 2010. No date given.

(4) A bouquet though .... at page 9 and 10 is set out the planning role of Auckland Council in regard to the roles and responsibilities of the Local Boards (or community Councils).

Scenario Thought 1: North Shore's sewer management How will this work under SuperCity? The structure has a "Manager of Infrastructure and Utilities" under the "Chief Operating Officer", so I guess that's where councillors might get quarterly reports about overflows at North Shore pump stations - from Watercare. I say: might. Then there is the strategy division under the "Chief Planning Officer", who has a "Manager Regional and Local Planning". Nowhere is there a "Manager Water and Wastewater". Either under "Planning" or "Operations". And under "Chief Finance Officer" there is "Manager Local Board Services". Would that person be responsible for ensuring Local Board concerns about regular dry-weather overflows, or wet weather overflows, were dealt with? And - in terms of setting strategic priorities for Watercare in relation to network management - where would that sit in the proposed structure?

Draft Scope of Workforce Change

5) The Draft Scope of Workforce Change is an interesting section, which deals partly with systems and also with staff. It notes at the outset that: "... the integration of the IT and other systems and processes which support local government activities will take time..." (Probably the understatement of the century that one - and one of the reasons why wholesale abolition was always an irresponsible option), and interestingly that: "...government policy decisions are needed, regarding ATA's mandate in dealing with existing or the creation of new council controlled organisations...".

6) The discussion document makes a strong disinction between services "where there are systems constraints", and services where there are none. Basically, the document suggests that services that are easy to change, should be changed before 1 November. These include: "strategy; policy and planning; Maori relations; HR; Communications;..." etc. That leaves services that depend on systems services like: call centres; information systems; planning; consenting; rating and payment; and - while it does not explicitly say so - this must include water, wastewater and transport infrastructure - which (I know) are heavily tied into very explicit computer information systems. Interestingly, the document notes that: "...particular priority will be given to systems changes required for the separation of transport functions and the integration of water and wastewater services..." (NB: No mention of stormwater.)

7) The document indicates that ATA "does not intend generally" to review staff numbers or roles, "...whose jobs are specific to particular operational work in .... social housing; local community development and funding; youth,safety and other community programmes... or in infrastructural services such as stormwater, transport and water services..." It notes though, that: "where this work is located may change..."

8) However the document notes: "staff whose primary functions relate to strategy, policy and planning are likely to be involved in significant change as these functions will generally be centralised..." So that's a change. An expected change.

Scenario Thought 2: Management of Transport How will this work under SuperCity? A simple change in this term of ARC is illustrative. Last term, the ARC's Transport Policy Committee dealt with ARTA. It did the Statement of Intent, Administrative Budget, Annual Plan and Priorities, and it received the Quarterly and Annual Reports, and it had ARTA into committee when matters of public interest arose. This term it's been different. Why? Because it was decided at start of this term, that Finance Committee would deal with CCOs - SOIs, Reporting, Budgets, Board Appointments etc - and it has led to a disconnection between transport policy and transport delivery. That should be fixed. The way I read the proposed structure for Auckland Council, there is separation and disconnection with bells on. For a start there is no Transport Strategy Manager. And, like Scenario 1 above for wastewater, there is poor connection between management of local board services (which I presume must include their concerns - eg about road surfacing, bus shelters, traffic lights.... the list is long), strategic transport planning, and "operations" under that hard-working "Manager Infrastructure and Utilities" - all in different divisions. So come on guys. How about illustrating your structure with a few real scenarios. Convince yourself that it will work with some typical infrastructure plans, priorities, budgets, services, reporting, accountability. Then tell us.

Draft Protocols and Processes

9) This is a really interesting one. It notes that, under law, "...ATA is required to develop a change management plan.... for the transition of staff to Auckland Council, the Auckland Transport Agency, and the Waterfront Development Agency...". It also notes that existing Councils: "remain responsible for the employment of their staff", but that: "they are also required to cooperate with the ATA... to facilitate the re-organisation." Apparently, "ATA is not bound to consult with councils, or with employees of those organisations regarding the transition process...". The document concludes: "consultation obligations remain the responsibility of existing councils as employers of the staff...". (Talk about a poison chalice. ATA designs without needing to consult, and councils have to make it happen. Fantastic accountability there...)

10) In contrast though, as the ATA document notes: "...Watercare must plan and manage the integration of water and wastewater services..." (Which is part of the explanation that stormwater has got lost in translation) and: "the ATA must approve and oversee this process..." (So it's one process for Council staff, and quite another for Watercare. Must be who you know, rather than what you know....)

11) This section explains the rather awful, but necessary process of "mapping" where existing employees will be shown a "map" of the new, and the old, with arrows (presumably) showing the route options open to them. Job changes, location changes, criteria for consideration, and then other options for down-sizing staff ranging from: attrition; alternative appointment; voluntary redundancy and compulsory redundancy. At least this part's all pretty clear.

So that's my take on what this discussion document tells us.
Interesting, but has a bad feeling about it. Lots of unanswered questions.
Still feels a bit like a train wreck in slow-motion.

Scenario Thought 3: More, or Less, Integrated Planning? How will this SuperCity structure deliver integrated planning and service delivery? There is an interesting diagram in the discussion document. It lists "centralised" and "distributed" services with quite a lot of overlap. More work to do on that one.... One of the main objectives of this whole destructive restructure of Auckland Governance, was to deliver integration. But I fail to see how this can happen in the proposed structure (the diagram), the apparent lack of ability to govern the CCOs, and the suggestions that the CCOs will be located some physical distance from the heart of Auckland Council (Watercare is already separately located, and the document suggests that ARTA should relocate "to make room for" centralised staff). ARC went to considerable lengths to ensure that the core of ARH and ARTA were co-located with ARC's core at Vodafone House. This was not so that Councillors could "meddle", it was to ensure very good communications and contact between left hand and right hand. I am keenly aware that certain interests would LOVE Auckland's water and transport CCOs to be a million miles from their governors, and the key staff who will be responsible for making that governance work. And I know about internet, telephones and email. There is a lack of public accountability and political reality in what increasingly looks like a corporate-designer institution whose bureaucracy and core functions are structurally - by design - separated from Auckland Council and Auckland Councillors.

Isn't Aisling's death a stormwater wake-up call for Auckland?

There's been a little bit of news coverage of what Waitakere City Council - councillors and staff - must be going through after Aisling was found drowned in one of Waitakere's stormwater pipes.

There but for the grace of God go many of Auckland's Councils I think.

Stormwater has always been the "poor relation" of Auckland's waters.

This gives a good idea of what happens when a stomrwater pipe surcharges in heavy rain (shower gone past in this picture, but overland flow continues as land drains). The bulge of water will be surging from a stormwater pipe below ground. Here, there is an overland flow path above the pipe.

So far, in Auckland's restructuring, stormwater is running through the cracks...

Stormwater manhole lids are locked into place by lugs. The lids turn to lock. But in my experience stormwater lids routinely "pop off" or "pop open" under the pressure of stormwater when pipes are surcharged (full).

Who will control this infrastructure in Auckland's SuperCity?



This diagram gives a good idea of what a stormwater pipe looks like, and its connections to manholes and manhole covers above. (This image is actually a sewer pipe, but the principle is the same...). The diagram also shows some of the problems that arise, like cracks in the pipes, like tree roots getting in. All of these problems need to be managed. The pipes go where water goes.

Under present arrangements, stormwater pipes are controlled by Auckland's councils. Some Councils have integrated the management of stormwater infrastructure with that of water and wastewater. Three water strategies are what the modern world does. It is working reasonably well. But obviously not perfect as the Waitakere experience clearly demonstrates.

But under present proposals, Watercare will ONLY pick up water and wastewater. Nobody has said anything about what will happen to stormwater infrastructure.

So who will?

Stormwater slips through cracks in Supercity reforms

Given Auckland's high annual rainfall and the increasing incidence of weather bomb problems, it is concerning that Parliament's Supercity Select Committee recommends that Auckland's stormwater be separated from the management of Auckland's water and wastewater.

Their decision adds weight to worries that Watercare is being shaped into a neat vertically integrated business funded by revenues from water and wastewater charges. This business model would be upset by Auckland's stormwater challenges, but then public services do not always lend themselves to market solutions.

Today, Auckland's "three-water" services are delivered locally in an integrated way. Councils recognise how inter-twined our waters are, whether we like it or not, and they need to be managed together for a host of reasons.

In the old days, stormwater was managed by council roading departments. But even that model will not possible under Supercity proposals, because roads are to be managed by a separate transport infrastructure agency with little interest in stormwater.

Stormwater cannot be allowed to flow through the cracks in these reforms. Integrated management of Auckland's stormwater assets and ponds and flowpaths is essential.

Three Waters Governance under Auckland Reorganisation

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 2009, for which submissions to Select Ctte close 26th of June, provides for Watercare Services to "plan and manage integration of water supply and wastewater services" in s.24. (It does this by amending the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009, as it happens.)

It is essential there are strong submissions on this provision.

It is essential that - if there is to be vertically integrated management of Auckland's water economy - then this must also include stormwater. It must be the 3 waters.

Some argue that, because stormwater is essentially local, it falls locally, then its management should sit with land use planning, transport programmes (gutters are used to carry stormwater flows), and other community programmes (rain is nice and fuzzy and good for environmental education and drains and what happens when it all gets to the sea - sort of stuff).

I completely disagree with this approach. In my time (6 years) on North Shore City Council, which does have vertically integrated wastewater - it managed local sewer network and Rosedale wastewater treatment plant - the benefits of 3 water management were recognised by senior staff, councillors and public alike.

We have a tui feeder in our garden. I put sugar water in it every morning - I forget the odd day. They come along and preen and perform. And they sing...

You cannot separate stormwater from water supply and wastewater. Stormwater infiltration is the single biggest challenge to wastewater reticulation and treatment - they become intwined in the pipe network. Their integrated management is essential.

Rainwater is a component of water supply - for non-potable uses (washing machines and toilet flushing). Many homes in the region rely soley on rainwater for their supply of all water.

Wastewater across the region is NOT all reticulated. Many homes have onsite systems. Many of these are very modern and competently engineered.

It is simply not good enough to charge Watercare with managing the "easy" bit, the piped bit, the metered and attractive to privatise bit - when there is so much more to water, wastewater and stormwater.

Watercare has had a poor record in my view across the region, because it has been so focussed on end-of-pipe solutions. This stance is why Auckland has seen Eco-water at Waitakere, Manukau Water at Manukau, North Shore's 3 water division - all active in managing 3 waters together, across their territorial areas - not just end of pipe. If this vertical integration is to proceed, then that expertise must then be retained in Watercare, and its role and responsibility must move to include also: on-site wastewater systems; the new stormwater systems that have evolved across North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau which are based on streams, ponds, detention and riparian planting - rather than pipes and concrete outfalls; and rainwater collection systems.