Watercare declares independence from Auckland

Watercare is the ONLY local government entity that will survive Auckland's draconian re-organisation unabolished, unscathed, and - in fact - considerably enlarged.

I've had a lot of interaction with Watercare over the years.

Between 1994 and 1998 I was occupied - some might say pre-occupied - with the Waikato Pipeline project (in its emergency guise and then as permanent supply, see elsewhere in this blog for info about the Manukau Agreement that arose). And then from 1998 to 2004 I was North Shore City Council's main man on the Watercare Shareholder Representative Group (each of Auckland's councils hold shares in Watercare, and these give them the right to govern Watercare through a Statement of Intent and through appointment of directors to Watercare's Board).

I have been on ARC since 2004, and note here that ARC's role in respect to Watercare is a environmental regulator. ARC does not hold shares in Watercare. I was ARC commissioner when Watercare sought extensions to its resource consents to operate its "Pond 2 Landfill", which is on the edge of the Manukau Harbour, and is where most of Auckland's sewage sludge is presently disposed of. On the periphery of this, I have also acted as Conmmissioner on other wastewater related consents - notably North Shore City Council's wastewater and stormwater network discharge consent hearings.

Under SuperCity legislation, all of the Auckland Region's wastewater and freshwater networks and systems will be integrated, and transferred to Watercare. I understand that Watercare will maintain its status as a "Council Controlled Organisation", and that Auckland Council will "govern" it through an Annual Statement of Intent and through the hiring and firing of Watercare Board Directors.

I have to say that this is a remarkably arms-length arrangement. It would be hard to name a single project or initiative that Watercare has been responsible for over the past decade that has been driven by the collective will of Auckland ratepayers and exercised through the governance arrangements that exist, and which serve to protect Watercare - shelter it - from the will of the people.

Before I get too carried away here, I will talk only about 3 things:

Puketutu. Watercare sought a designation and resource consents to dispose of biosolids (Auckland sewage) into Puketutu. Manukau City Council did not accept the designation, and ARC declined the resource consents. Among the reasons for the rejections were that there were significant Maori concerns over what Watercare intended, and also that commissioners did not accept watercare's contention that its activities would "rehabilitate" the quarry on Puketutu. There were other reasons. Watercare has appealed those decisions - as is its right. Unusually - even significantly - Watercare has gone public in NZ Herald and its own oublic magazine (Interflow) to assert that: "Watercare continues to support vision for Puketutu Island..." Extraordinary really. This public body is giving two fingers - in public - to Auckland's regional environmental regulators. This is heading to a gunfight. Reason: Watercare has backed itself - and Auckland - into a shitty little corner. Critical to this is Watercare hanging onto the right of commercial polluters to dump heavy metal contaminants into sewers, thereby contaminating otherwise clean sewage, rendering it dangerous to apply to land - as is the practice in Northern hemisphere cities, Sydney, and so on. Dumping sewage biosolids in a hole in an island in a harbour is dark age stuff. But Watercare wants that "vision", and is pressing on its independent, unaccountable course.

Bureaucracy: A thickening layer of bureaucracy is growing between Auckland Council and Watercare - between elected decision-makers, and the managers responsible for delivering Auckland's water and wastewater services. Some degree of transparency is possible now - and is reported - comparing and bench-marking the relative performance of local services provided by North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Auckland City. This is good for performance management and reporting. After the integration, this separation will be absorbed into the Watercare corporation. Councillors will want to get a good handle on what Watercare is doing - and bureaucrats will be needed to extract useful information. But information assymetry will be alive and well: Watercare will know everything and Council bureaucrats will only be able to guess at the facts. Unless there is an independent audit. In my memory - there has only been one such independent audit. While I was on the SRG I managed to get support for international authority - Halcrow - to investigate Watercare's performance. No filing cabinet remained closed - in theory. It was a very useful report - which Watercare sought to influence, manipulate and deflect relevant recommendations - even going so far as to commission Price Waterhouse (if my memory serves me right) to rebut Halcrow. The thickening layer of bureacrats will further distance elected representatives from what is happening....

Wastewater network overflows: In this issue of Interflow, Watercare admits to 9 overflows from its sewer network to 30th September due to stormwater getting into the network, and 1 due to external power failure. Interflow notes that: "illegal stormwater inflows into Local Network Operators' sewers can cause overflows in heavy rain...." Speaking from experience, I am aware that exactly this problem applied on the North Shore. It's sewere network overflowed in heavy rain, and also when there was a power failure. That is why North Shore has invested heavily in storage systems to collect overflows (before they overflow), and why most pump stations have standby generators that kick in when there is an external power failure. In this way, North Shore is aiming to achieve a target of no more than 2 overflows per year. North Shore is setting an example. And here's the rub: a little birdie has told me that Watercare is propsoing a target of 6 overflows/year from local networks. 300% worse than North Shore's target. Talk about lowest common denominator. That's what integration will give Auckland I think - a decline in environmental standards and a structural failure of governance.

There's a lot more to say on this. Keep watching.

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.

My Select Committee Oral Submission ....

I was invited to deliver my submission to the Select Committee at Orakei Marae on Bastion Point - Wednesday 8th July. This was because part of my submission addressed the matter of Maori seats. I also submitted about community boards (Community Councils in my lingo), Auckland Council elections, and Three Waters. Quite an experience.

Anyway, here it is. Remember, this was my oral submission - it is written as I spoke it:

1. Introduction to Oral Submission

Kia ora, and thank you and your staff for the opportunity of presenting my submission in this special place, Orakei Marae, Bastion Point.

This submission is in support of my written submission, which you will have.

But first of all a brief introduction to where I’m coming from, and where I come from.
I am from the Mainland. Went to school in Oamaru, university in Christchurch, and after becoming vastly over-qualified, went to live and work in England for 14 years.
There I had a spectacular time as a rocket scientist on military projects, as a systems analyst for Shell International working on oil price modelling and crude oil depletion, then for IBM designing interactive multimedia resources used when they introduced the first IBM PC into UK and European dealerships for personal and business use.

When I returned to New Zealand, I didn’t need to go into Local Government. But I did because – like most committed politicians – I wanted to make a difference.

I’ve been an elected independent councillor in Auckland for the past 11 years. Including 6 years on North Shore City Council from 1998 where I chaired the Works Ctte during the Northern Busway design and North Shore’s major sewer network cleanup program. I served on Devonport Community Board through those years also. In 2004 I stood for ARC. In my first term I chaired its Transport Committee and the Regional Land Transport Ctte that shifted $1 billion from state highway spending to public transport. Since then I have focussed on the waterfront, regional development, and – of course – governance.

Like most local government politicians I have a love/hate relationship with local government. I love it when it’s good, and I hate it when it’s bad. And after eleven years total immersion I have some understanding of the difference.

It’s easy to hate something you don’t understand. Unfortunately – many of those who have the power to decide what happens to Auckland’s governance have publicly demonstrated a poor understanding of local government. And they hate it. Superficial criticisms and simplistic solutions will not deliver good governance for Auckland.

I am advised that this is not the place for me to state my opinions about the broad supercity proposals that have been proposed by Government – many of which I oppose - so I won’t say any more about those opinions, unless asked.

The rest of what I’m going to say now, addresses the specifics of the Bill that is in front of you. My objective is to get the best outcomes from a flawed process.

2. Maori Representation on Auckland Council

ARC has a Maori Liaison unit with good staff. People like Tipa Compain and Johnny Freeland. But their contribution to ARC decision-making is mediated by other staff, by committee chairs, and by statute. Consequent decision-making is Treaty of Waitangi driven. There is no room for the broader Maori world view to be expressed.

To get a free and independent Maori voice around the Auckland Council table there needs to be 2 or 3 Maori seats at Council and key committees.

Forgive me if what I say now is a bit ignorant. I have some understanding of the Ngati Whatua AIP. I have had informal discussions with individual Maori - not all from Ngati Whatua - because I saw opportunities for Auckland Maori at Auckland’s waterfront development. Through those discussions I understand some reasons why there has not been a coordinated and collective Maori voice in Auckland. Pending the resolution of individual iwi claims, it is difficult to speak with a collective voice. The Hikoi was an exception. I have learned a little of the negotiations that are occurring now between Government and Auckland iwi. I understand that the aim is for these negotiations to be with the broader collective, not just with specific iwi.

With that understanding in mind, I don’t believe the best solution to Maori representation on Auckland Council is through 2 or 3 Maori candidates being elected.

I think Maori representatives would be better being appointed to Auckland Council, and relevant committees, to allocated seats, by the Auckland maori collective leadership, rather than being elected at large or from large wards.

This process would also mean that the most appropriate or informed maori voices can be appointed to take those seats at Council and its committees for specific decisions.


3. Auckland Council Elections – 9 multi-member wards

Most Councils appear to be supporting 20 wards, with one member/ward. This will lead to 20 First Past the Post elections (though the STV voting system would improve outcomes). I think there is a better option, which is supported by a significant number of ARC councillors.

Presently the ARC's 13 members are elected from 6 wards. Rodney and Papakura/Franklin are single member wards; Manukau is a 3 member ward; Auckland is a 4 member ward; and Waitakere and North Shore are each 2 member wards. In the multi-member wards, voters get to choose ALL of the members from that ward. So in Auckland - for example - voters get to cast 4 votes.

I think this approach is better than 1 member/ward, because:

· Councillors are less inclined to be parochial (they will represent a broader area, and not just their "personal" seat);
· councillors from the same ward can support each other (sharing local meetings, and with local boards);
· ratepayers have choices who to make representation to;
· councillors can allocate ward responsibilities better;
· greater likelihood of Auckland Council concentrating on regional issues and regional decision-making;
· parallels the different structural roles of Auckland Council Vs Community Council – the one being regional, the others being local

An option for Auckland Council would be: Rodney remains a 1 member ward; North Shore becomes a 3 member ward; Auckland is split into two 3 member wards (say); Waitakere becomes a 3 member ward; Franklin and Papakura are each 1 member wards; and Manukau becomes a 2 and a 3 member ward. (20 in total).

This structure – which echoes the ARC’s present workable arrangement - offers an effective balance between at-large representation, and 20 single-member wards.


4. Community Council (Board) Functions, Candidate Quality, Numbers

Community Councils should be required to produce a Local/Community Plan annually, which would cover:

· the community vision;
· outline of community priorities, projects and activities;
· key assets and values that need to be protected by Auckland Council;
· balanced budget for 3 years to fund these priorities;
· how the plan delivers on regional plans and strategies;
· performance measures.

In addition, Community Councils should have clearly defined local planning responsibilities - such as the ability to process local resource consent applications. There is good reason for the Bill to statutorily provide for this sort of process and role.

Community Councils will be the local eyes and ears of Auckland Council. They will bear the brunt of community concerns should these arise. It is appropriate therefore, that their responsibilities are clear cut. Auckland Council should be accountable for its decisions, while Community Councils are accountable for local decisions.

The current bill provides for Auckland Council to delegate other functions to Community Councils. Such as local parks maintenance and management, local roading repairs. This is appropriate. This discretion is hard to prescribe in statute.

Community Board members need to be paid appropriately. If you give local members the job of peeling bananas and pay them peanuts – you’ll get monkeys. There is dead wood in Auckland community boards now. This is a consequence of lack of power and low pay. Ensuring a typical Community Council workload translates into something like 3 days a week/member, would justify remuneration in the $35,000 to $45,000. Candidates of quality will be attracted by a combination of personally satisfying and publicly meaningful decision-making, and worthwhile remuneration.

How many Community Boards? Most North Shore Community Boards are col-located with Area Offices in buildings which also house the local library and community services such as the CAB. These combined community facilities are local institutions, but they have depended on North Shore City Council which acts as the anchor tenant. I would invite Select Ctte members to visit – for example – East Coast Bays, Glenfield and Devonport Area Offices to gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.

If any of the associated Community Boards (local Council) are abolished then it will be difficult to justify retention of the related Area Office. Like a house of cards. Whole communities will suffer.

Institutional losses on a huge scale are implicit in Government’s reform proposals. It is my submission that – to ensure some community continuity – then Community Councils be built broadly along the lines of existing Community Boards.

Summing up: The legislation needs to deliver Community Councils that are appreciated as important, valuable and significant by the local community, and which will attract candidates of quality, and which can be established without destroying institutional community development infrastructure and networks that exist now.


5. Three Water Management & Watercare Vertical Integration

It is essential that if vertical integration is the objective (merging Watercare as wholesaler of services, with the local water service functions of the current city and district councils), then that integration needs to be horizontal and include stormwater.

Throughout my experience of Auckland local government I have observed lobbying from those keen to gain control of piped and metered infrastructure. Water and wastewater are piped. They are also metered (wastewater is metered using “water-in” as a proxy for “wastewater-out”). A nice neat business.

The Bill at the moment is silent on stormwater – though some say that the word “wastewater” includes “stormwater”. First time I’ve heard that one. To avoid uncertainty, the Bill needs to explicitly state that this vertically integrated entity will, also, manage stormwater and be responsible for stormwater infrastructure – soft and hard – and for managing and maintaining it. Regional stormwater infrastructure consists of detention & settling ponds, natural streams, and some piping.

Much of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau stormwater infrastructure is currently run in an integrated way with the other 2 waters. Stormwater is the biggest problem for wastewater (infiltration causes overflows at pump stations); and rainwater is increasingly used as local supply (for washing water and irrigation). Stormwater is inextricably intermingled with water and wastewater. That is why related infrastructure needs to be managed as part of a 3-water approach.

ENDS

So, there you have it. The most obviously engaged members of the Select Committee were Shane Jones and Simon Power, and its Chair - Tau Henare. They appeared very interested in the idea of Maori seats being allocated, and appropriate Maori members appointed.

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.