Collaborative Water Services Initiative: Southern Councils Reluctantly Agree to Joint Management

Summary of the Proposed Water Services Entity & Councillor Reactions

This article details the decision by several New Zealand councils to form a joint water services entity, and the mixed reactions from councillors involved. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

The Proposal:

Joint Entity: Three councils (likely Clutha, Central Otago, and potentially others) are forming a new entity to manage their “three waters” (water supply, stormwater, and wastewater).
Timeline: Operations are planned to begin by July 2027, covering 24 urban and 10 rural supplies.
Analysis Supports It: Self-reliant analysis by Concept Consulting, Infometrics, and the Department of Internal Affairs all concluded this model is the best and most viable option.
Potential Expansion: The Timaru and Waitaki District Councils are being considered for inclusion, and further collaboration with other southern councils is open for discussion.
Financial Benefits (for Clutha): The entity would improve Clutha’s debt-to-revenue ratio, potentially unlocking $8 million in additional borrowing capacity.
Governance: The entity, led by Southern Water Done Well chair Tamah Alley, aims to be regionally focused, community-driven, and maintain local decision-making.Councillor Concerns & Reactions:

Loss of Control: A major concern is the perceived loss of local control over assets and decision-making. Several councillors expressed resentment at what they felt was pressure from the government and a “stranger from Wellington” dictating terms. (Catherwood, Finch, Mackie)
Cost concerns: Some fear separate rates and water bills will be more expensive for ratepayers. (Catherwood)
Threats & Bullying: Councillor Mackie felt ratepayers were being threatened and the district bullied.
Confidence in Local Expertise: Councillor Martin believes the council could manage water services effectively and affordably with its existing staff. Reluctant Acceptance: Some councillors felt they had no choice but to proceed,fearing government intervention if they didn’t. (Payne, Finch)
Waitaki’s Situation: The Waitaki District Council’s independent plan was deemed inadequate by the Department of Internal Affairs, leading to the expectation of a government-appointed specialist taking over – further reinforcing the pressure to join the partnership.

Key Considerations & Potential Downsides:

Erosion of Local Control: The analysis acknowledges a risk of reduced local control.
Job Losses: Centralization of work could lead to job losses in some districts.
Price Increases: Transition to a regional pricing model might increase charges for some customers.
New Council Inclusion: Councillor Ludemann stressed that any new councils joining shouldn’t impose extra costs on existing partners and require discussion.

In essence, the councils are proceeding with a collaborative approach to water services, driven by analysis and a desire to avoid direct government intervention, but with notable reservations and concerns about the impact on local control, costs, and jobs.

How might differing priorities among the councils regarding water allocation and economic progress impact the long-term effectiveness of the SRWA?

The Road to Regional Water Collaboration

For years, the southern councils of [mention specific region/counties – replace bracketed text] have operated independent water management systems. Each council, responsible for water supply, wastewater treatment, and stormwater management, maintained its own infrastructure, policies, and budgets.Though, increasing pressures – from prolonged droughts and aging infrastructure to stricter environmental regulations and the rising costs of water infrastructure – have forced a reckoning. Recent agreements signal a shift towards a collaborative water services initiative,though not without significant resistance.

Key Drivers Behind the Change

Several converging factors pushed these councils towards joint management. These include:

Water Scarcity: The region has experienced increasingly frequent and severe droughts, highlighting the need for a unified approach to water resource management.

Infrastructure Deficits: many councils face ample backlogs in infrastructure repairs and upgrades, particularly in wastewater treatment plants and aging water pipelines. The cost of individual upgrades is prohibitive.

regulatory Compliance: New environmental regulations regarding water quality and discharge standards require significant investment and expertise, making collaboration more appealing.

economies of Scale: Joint procurement of chemicals, equipment, and services, along with shared expertise, promises significant cost savings. This is a core tenet of integrated water management.

Funding Opportunities: Increasingly, funding for water security projects, as highlighted in reports like the World Bank Group’s Water Security Financing Report 2024 [https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/publication/water-security-financing-report-2024], is contingent on regional collaboration.

The Agreement: Structure and Scope

The newly formed Southern Regional Water Authority (SRWA) will oversee the following key areas:

1. Joint Procurement: Centralized purchasing of water treatment chemicals, pumping equipment, and other essential supplies.
2. Shared expertise: pooling of technical staff and expertise in areas like water engineering, environmental science, and asset management.
3. Regional Planning: Development of a comprehensive regional water management plan addressing long-term supply, demand, and infrastructure needs.
4. Emergency Response: Coordinated response to water-related emergencies, such as droughts, floods, and contamination events.
5. Capital Investment: Joint funding applications and prioritization of capital improvement projects, focusing on water infrastructure resilience.

The agreement stipulates a phased implementation over five years, starting with joint procurement and progressing to full operational integration. Each council retains ownership of its existing assets but contributes to a shared operating budget based on population and water usage.

Council Concerns and Reluctance

The path to collaboration wasn’t smooth. Several councils voiced strong objections, citing concerns about:

Loss of Control: Fears that a regional authority would diminish local control over water resources and decision-making.

Unequal Burden Sharing: Concerns that some councils would bear a disproportionate share of the financial burden.

Bureaucracy and Inefficiency: Apprehension that a larger, more complex association would be less responsive and efficient.

Differing Priorities: Conflicting priorities regarding water allocation, environmental protection, and economic development.

Local Jobs: Worries about potential job losses due to consolidation of operations.

These concerns were addressed through extensive negotiations and concessions, including guaranteed representation on the SRWA board and a commitment to maintaining local employment levels wherever possible.

Benefits of a Collaborative Approach

Despite the initial reluctance, the potential benefits of the SRWA are substantial:

Improved Water Security: A more resilient and reliable water supply for the entire region.

Reduced Costs: Economies of scale and shared resources will lower operating costs for all councils.

Enhanced Environmental Protection: A coordinated approach to water pollution control and watershed management.

Increased Investment: Access to larger funding opportunities for critical infrastructure projects.

Greater Efficiency: Streamlined operations and improved resource allocation.

Better Preparedness: Enhanced capacity to respond to water-related emergencies.

Case Study: the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia

The challenges faced by the southern councils mirror those experienced by the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. Decades of fragmented water management led to severe environmental degradation and water scarcity. The establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, a regional body responsible for integrated water management, demonstrates the potential for successful collaboration, although it also highlights the complexities and political challenges involved.Lessons learned from the Australian experience – the importance of stakeholder engagement, clear decision-making, and equitable resource allocation – are directly applicable to the SRWA.

Practical Tips for Successful Implementation

To ensure the SRWA’s success, the following steps are crucial:

Transparent Communication: Regular and open communication with the public and stakeholders.

Strong Leadership: Effective leadership from the SRWA board and staff.

data-Driven Decision Making: Reliance on accurate data and scientific analysis.

Adaptive Management: A willingness to adapt and adjust the plan based on changing conditions.

*