Three councils project $1.25 billion in capital investment for water services through FY33/34.

In recent years, heaps of questionable numbers and claims have been thrown around by HB’s city and district councils regarding the status of their water services infrastructure and related (mostly non- or under-) investments.

This data blizzard intensified when the Ardern Labour Government, looking at billions nationally in historic under-investment by local councils and wide service level disparities, proposed its ‘3 Waters’ plan to seriously consolidate all water services – drinking water, wastewater, stormwater – into four regional agencies both to achieve cost savings and to modernize and make more equitable the future services required.

Councils were required to ‘open their books’ on the matter and, including our own, screamed bloody hell about this ‘usurping’ of local authority. 

So much noise about local infrastructure spending had not been heard since Napier Mayor Bill Dalton and his chief executive Wayne Jack blatantly and shamefully misled the public during the amalgamation debate about the wise stewardship of the ‘no-debt’ Naper City Council compared the extravagantly profligate debt funding incurred by the Hastings Council (much of that for infrastructure investment).

Events and closer examination have established that Napier ratepayers were conned.

But moving on, the current Coalition Government came along, toned done Labour’s ‘radical’ consolidation and enacted its own version, which has required local councils to bear their souls on water service deficiencies and future costs.

Councils were given until this past September to prepare their versions of regional water service consolidation, with full documentation of the state of service, consent status, impaired infrastructure (pipes, pumps, treatment facilities, etc), workplans both in progress and planned for the next ten years, relevant staffing, all costs involved … and the calculated affordability (or not) of all this to ratepayers.

Hastings, CHB and Napier Councils joined up to propose a consolidated agency (the Water Services Council Controlled Organisation – WSCCO) and their plan has been approved by the Government. Substantial inter-council planning is underway, supported by the HB Regional Recovery Agency (which terminates next March).

The Government directed that these plans must be ‘affordable’, but has offered no funding support to make that achievable.

So while the bottom line reckoning of how to pay for the needed investment seems over the horizon, at least an unprecedented level of transparency has been achieved around HB’s water services, deficiencies and costs … at least for Hastings, Napier and CHB. Wairoa is sitting out the regional game, apparently finding a rich source of gold, diamonds or lithium up in those hills.

Notwithstanding data gaps and closer inspection needs, all this information and analysis had to pass the scrutiny of the Department of Internal Affairs, the first definitive cross-examination such information has ever received.

That transparency is provided by this document – Water Services Delivery Plan, September 2025 – now officially approved by central government.

Only hard core water service zealots will ever read this 136-page document with its dozens of tables. But it effectively now serves as the ‘standard reference’ – the Bible – for the relevant facts and figures to inform public debate around water service improvements to be undertaken.

And it serves as the starting blueprint to be furnished to the new WSCCO, which will service a population of 159,736 with 64,797 connections across 15 water supply networks, 7 wastewater networks and 15 main stormwater catchments. All spelled out in granular detail for each council’s area. All sitting there to be compared … and lamented.

Anybody want to know how many water supply connections in Porangahau (228) compared to Waimarama (308)?

Seriously, there are enough startling factoids in this document to support dozens of clickbait headlines, but I’ll just tease you with a few right here.

The section providing the assessment of the current condition and lifespan of the water services network is chocka with nuggets, but begins with this disclaimer:

“WSCCO councils acknowledge robust condition assessment data is lacking, and data confidence needs improvement. Work programmes will be put in place to enhance critical areas such as condition assessment and better understanding of those assets in Poor or Very Poor condition.”

That aside, the Bible reports:

• For NCC, the percentage of below ground network in poor or very poor condition: Water Supply – 20.3%, Wastewater – 41.7%, Stormwater – 10.5%

• For Hastings, the percentage of below ground network in poor or very poor condition: Water Supply – 28.5%, Wastewater – 12.9%, Stormwater – 3.3%

• For CHB, the percentage of below ground network in poor or very poor condition: Water Supply – 7.3%, Wastewater – 25.7%, Stormwater – 2.5%

Here are statements typical of many in the report, this one related to water supply: “There is an elevated risk to service interruption and water quality within the CHBDC network resulting from the asset age and likely condition being worse than it is currently recorded as … 25.14km of the network is currently operating beyond its useful lifespan.” As for HDC: “The total HDC Water Supply network backlog and short-term forecast water supply main renewal is 105.63 km, of which 77% is backlog.” And for Napier: “…the majority of assets with less than 10 years remaining life are assessed as being in Very Poor or Poor condition. Physical inspection is required to verify the assessed condition, and the required renewals.”

Similar data and assessments are provided for wastewater and stormwater systems.

Other data and comparisons of note include compliance with drinking water and environmental standards and consents. Collectively the three councils operate under 21 drinking water consents, 9 wastewater consents and 22 stormwater consents. Compliance with these (or otherwise) is reported.

For those with consultant phobia, all professional service providers – the Standtec, Fulton Hogan and Beca’s of the space are identified with their assignments by council. Right down to the software tools used to monitor, model and bill.

And of course there’s piles of financial information. 

Most notably for now: For the years FY24/25 through FY33/34, the three councils project $1,250,651,000 in capital investment for water services, the largest component being wastewater treatment. A key set of tables indicates the degree of underspending against planned investment by the councils in the last five fiscal years, with CHB showing the poorest delivery and HDC slightly ahead of NCC.

The total funding requirement for all water services is discussed in detail, with average charges per connection projected and affordability front and centre. But this deserves another BayBuzz post!

If you can’t wait, here is the Water Services Delivery Plan 2025.