Ohakune Water Plant Highlights Need For Affordable Water Solutions

Touring the new Ohakune Water Treatment Plant (WTP) with other elected members Mayor Kirton reflected on its $10.4 million cost and Council's impending decision on how to provide future water services under the Government's Local Water Done Well (LWDW) reforms.
LWDW requires all councils to decide how they will continue to deliver safe, reliable water services sustainably into the future - either alone or in partnership with other councils.
Mayor Kirton said the new plant was funded in part through the Government's Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF) which was created to help smaller councils like Ruapehu manage the pressures of increasing visitor numbers.
'Funding support through the TIF was critical in getting this much needed project underway' he said.
'It helped address the gap left by our small ratepayer base and supported our efforts to ensure sustainable visitor growth.
Unfortunately, the TIF and similar funding mechanisms are no longer available, making future upgrades much harder to afford.'
He said the rising cost of delivering water infrastructure is a key issue as Council considers who to partner with to deliver future water services.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
"Construction of the plant was impacted by the COVID19 shutdowns and the massive infrastructure inflation that followed that saw water systems increase by over 28% and the final build cost increase significantly.
'We're now being asked to do more with less. The Government is encouraging smaller, rural councils like ours to work together to achieve affordability and long-term sustainability of water delivery.
The most cost-effective option on the table is a five-council Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation with Palmerston North, Horowhenua, Rangitīkei, and hopefully Whanganui.
We're currently asking our communities what they think about this option.'
Mayor Kirton urged people to take a moment to complete the short survey on Council's website.
'This is about ensuring safe, affordable water services for the future.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NZ Herald

16 hours ago

• NZ Herald

Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns

Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the

RNZ News

a day ago

• RNZ News

Hawke's Bay residents outraged over council's proposed water rate hike

The hike is due to a proposed regional water entity to replace the Three Waters Policy. Photo: RNZ/Alexa Cook A group of Central Hawke's Bay residents are accusing the council of causing 'geriatric poverty' because of a proposed water rates hike of $5000 dollars per household over the next decade. In the quiet township of Takapau, a group of angry residents have banded together to fight the council's proposed water rates increases. (Left to right) Takapau residents Carl Tippett, Owen Clough, Lincoln Taylor, Christine Ross, Carmel Thompson, Kim Mathewson and Diane Sweeney. Photo: RNZ/Alexa Cook Kim Mathewson told RNZ she's outraged about the entire council process, and fears the devastating impact it'll have on their community. "There will be geriatric poverty here. That's really sad when someone thinks 'can't turn on the heater because of the power bill, I can't buy food because I have to buy the rates'. What kind of country are we living in? "Does this council have any social conscience? Because the way it is right now it appears they don't," she said. Kim has crunched the numbers on her own rates bill and said if, or when, water rates reach the council's forecast of $7000 a household by 2035, it will simply be unaffordable because it takes the total annual rates bill to about $9,500. "That's $180 a week per household of rates alone, plus $100 insurance, plus your power bill... if you're on a pension you're pretty much going to be left with $50 a week if you're lucky. No one can afford that," she said. Lincon Taylor owns Takapau business Taylor Made Gates and said under the CHBDC proposal he's facing a water rates rise of more than $25,000 a year for his business and the four properties he rents to his workers. "It's a huge increase. I find it hard to understand how the figures add up, what the council is trying to achieve, and who is paying for it," Taylor said. He said the regional model was probably needed, as Hastings and Napier could help make it an economy of scale for borrowing money, but worried about smaller rural communities like his. "I hope it doesn't turn around and bite small communities too hard because they can't afford it. "I'm proud of the fact that Takapau township has become a retirement village effectively... but they are the ones who are going to be affected the most. To add $4000 to their rates is going to be horrendous," Taylor said. Under the CHBDC proposal, Taylor Made Gates owner Lincoln Taylor estimates his water rates bill will increase by about $25,000 a year for his business and the rental properties for his workers. Photo: RNZ/Alexa Cook Carmel Thompson manages the CHB budget service and helps over 300 families and pensioners with their spending. But with the inevitable water rates increase, she's concerned about how her clients - both homeowners and renters - will make ends meet. "We have a lot of elderly women on our books and those living off only the pension are already struggling with the rates so I hate to think what will happen if we end up with these huge water rates, I'm not sure how these people will manage. "The elderly on pensions are our new poor. Everyone in the community is suffering though, it's really really sad," Thompson said. Fellow Takapau resident, Carl Tippett agreed. He moved from a rural property into the village of Takapau, but was now looking at moving away. "This is the beginning of the death of small towns right throughout New Zealand. If this goes ahead then people like us, over 65's, will not be able to afford to live... I feel angry. "We're at the end of the rope not the beginning. Frankly it's too late... there should have been a much longer consultation," he said. Owen Clough felt the council and government had failed to properly consider the huge impact on its residents if water rates skyrocket over $7000 by 2035. "There's no social thought about what is going to happen. No one has sat down and said 'can they afford afford this, can the country afford this?', because the answer is no," he said. Takapau pensioner Diana Sweeney was frustrated by the same issues, and questioned whether CHBDC was doing enough to lobby the government for help. "The lack of responsibility to this community by previous councils, the buck has to stop somewhere. The council needs to be our voice, we are a small town and we count. They need to spend our money responsibly," she said. A feeling echoed by Christine Ross, she's also part of the group and is one of 208 people who made submissions on the 'Local Water Done Well' proposals. "I can't afford to pay an increased rate on a single pension, it'll be almost 50 percent of my pension each week being spend on rates and I don't have it. "I won't be able to afford to live here, or anywhere at this rate. I'm horrified, I don't understand why the council isn't working for us, to help us," she said. CHB Mayor Alex Walker told RNZ the 'Local Water Done Well' was government's policy and framework. "The costs outlined in the current model are confronting, however council is actively working on options to reduce this cost, as outlined in the report to Council on 5 June. "We take every person, in every community seriously. Takapau was the first community in the district to get major water treatment plant upgrades in 2019," she said. CHBDC Mayor Alex Walker. Photo: RNZ / Alexa Cook CHBDC said it had the "perfect storm" of water problems in the region, with years of underinvestment, increasing regulations and an intimidating list of three waters infrastructure that needed upgrading or replacing. 85 percent of total council debt is related to the three waters programme with 25 percent of the drinking water piping network and 40 percent of the wastewater piping network at high risk of failure. Two water reservoirs are over 100 years old and need replacing, seven water treatment plants need $47 million of upgrades, and six wastewater treatment plants are not compliant and urgently need upgrading to the tune of $112 million. Central Hawke's Bay residents feel their council hasn't been transparent about the forecast future water rates hike. Photo: RNZ/Alexa Cook The Mayor said the council had consulted with the community for five weeks and had 10 meetings including two in Takapau. "Affordability. Affordability. Affordability. It is our key challenge and Local Water Done Well does not convincingly deliver that for us yet. Our community can see it and they are, quite rightly, not happy," Walker said. She said the council was continuously talking to government about the district's challenges and opportunities. "We have made multiple approaches to government, including seeking financial support and leading early work across the region on the Hawke's Bay Model in 2019. "Local Water Done Well is the government's approach to address the challenges districts, like ours, face which sets out that ratepayers not government pays for water assets like any other utility, such as electricity or gas," she said. Residents don't just have an issue with the cost, but also with what they said was a lack of consultation with residents over the massive water rates hike being proposed. Kim Mathewson told RNZ the council had known about the proposal since December, but only informed residents in May. "They're not being transparent right now and presenting all the figures. The information they gave us at the community meeting was like a power point presentation for a business, it didn't give you the facts. "It didn't highlight the $7000 increase and it was so small at the bottom of the page... to me that's not being transparent... it's being dishonest," she said. But mayor Alex Walker said the council had been transparent, and the financial rules presented in December have rapidly changed and are no longer correct. "That we were approaching consultation has been flagged in the media, and the regional work towards LWDW has been reported on repeatedly over the last few years. "We have had constructive conversations with people across the district. Most people are aware we are fighting for them, not with them, to make the district a better place and figure out an affordable solution," Walker said. However, residents want to see CHBDC lobby the government for more funding, to try and reduce the burden on ratepayers. "They have to fight the fight with the government. I've said to them: 'when you first saw this why did you not come to us, we are your biggest ally and you chose not to use us'. "We could have been fighting this fight two years ago. The consultation period has been too short, but I do know it's been the same for every community," Kim Mathewson said. Under the new 'Local Water Done Well' scheme, the Central Hawke's Bay District Council consulted with its community on three options: A regional controlled organisation (its preferred option), a stand-alone district council controlled organisation or an in-house delivery unit. However, under the scheme there are also two other options that weren't presented to CHB resident; a mixed council and consumer trust owned model, and a consumer trust owned organisation where assets are transferred from council to a trust. "They should have showed us all the options and presented them much better," Kim Mathewson said. However, CHBDC said it was only able to legislatively comply with three options, which was what it presented to the community in the Consultation Document, and this was explained on its website. Having now heard the public submissions on the proposed options for water services, the council will deliberate these at its meeting on July 3rd. All councils have to submit a 'water service delivery plan' to the government by September 3rd 2025. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Scoop

a day ago

• Scoop

Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground

Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.