[As published in March/April 2026 BayBuzz magazine.]

At a time when government is proposing significant changes to local governance, conversations about Regional Councils often mix separate issues, which risks creating more confusion than clarity.

The first issue is the Resource Management Act. Regional Councils are often described as blockers to economic growth, slow to consent, or simply too hard to deal with. I understand where that frustration comes from. But it’s important to be clear about where it should be directed. 

Regional Councils do not write the RMA; they are required to administer it. HBRC assess applications against statutory tests set by Parliament, not by councillors. When the system is complex, slow or expensive, that is usually a feature of the legislation, not the institution applying it.

That distinction matters. If government believes it is now addressing the problems of the RMA through reform, then it makes sense to stop treating Regional Councils as a stand-in for dissatisfaction with a planning system that was never of its making. Only then can we have a clearer conversation about what Regional Councils actually do, and whether they provide value.

Which brings me to the second issue – and, in my view, the more important one.

Government has said it will “get rid” of Regional Councils. When I hear that, my first reaction is a simple question: why would we remove the institutions responsible for work that sits at the very foundation of Hawke’s Bay’s economy and communities?

This region’s prosperity rests on land and water. That has always been true. Soil conservation, river management and flood protection are not side issues or nice-to-haves; they are what allow people to live, farm, build businesses and invest here with confidence. 

Many people aren’t aware that Regional Councils are built on the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act of 1941, which was introduced because unchecked erosion, unstable rivers and sediment-filled catchments were already causing serious economic and social harm. In other words, the work we do today is the continuation of a 85-year legacy designed to protect the foundations of Hawke’s Bay’s economy and communities, and it will remain essential into the future.

When the 1989 local government reforms redrew boundaries, they were deliberately aligned with water catchments rather than older political divisions. This wasn’t accidental, it reflected a recognition that the true unit of management for integrated flood and land management is the catchment itself. By structuring councils this way, the system was designed to ensure these critical functions would not be undermined by artificial political lines or parochial interests. That principle remains just as important today: we need to ensure that political identities don’t take precedence over the integrated, long-term management that protects the whole region.

Politics might be changing, but Hawke’s Bay’s geography hasn’t. Communities like Havelock North, Hastings and Flaxmere sit on a flood plain. That’s not a political point, it’s a physical reality. Managed river systems, stopbanks, spillways and ongoing maintenance are critical infrastructure. When they work well, most people never notice them. When they don’t, the consequences are immediate and costly, for households, businesses and the region as a whole.

The same applies to soil conservation. Erosion control and planting programmes stabilise vulnerable land, slow the movement of water, reduce sediment entering rivers and keep productive soils on the land. In Hawke’s Bay, around a thousand hectares a year are planted for this purpose. It’s careful, long-term work, but it directly reduces flood risk downstream and supports the productivity of the land upstream. Without it, both environmental damage and economic loss increase.

Water security sits alongside this. Managing water quantity and quality is essential for communities, industry and food production, particularly as climate pressures intensify. These are not functions that can be delivered effectively in isolation or treated as secondary concerns. They require regional-scale thinking, coordination and long-term planning. What we understand now is that the interaction between the engineered flood protection and natural aquifer recharge is critical, to ensure both function optimally.

We know that communities expect clear and confident leadership from councillors. The reality is that in this period of change, our role is more important than ever. It is our responsibility to be strong, focused and visible — to communicate clearly the issues we face, advocate for the investments and planning needed, and drive reform in a way that ensures any new system continues to prioritise flood protection, water security, soil conservation, and the long-term wellbeing of our communities. 

Leadership is not just about managing the challenges of today; it is about leading now to make sure that the work we know is essential is properly prioritised and protected in the systems of the future.

Most households in Hawke’s Bay pay between $9 to $19 a week in Regional Council rates. For that, they receive flood protection, river management, soil conservation, biodiversity restoration, marine and water quality monitoring, pollution enforcement and biosecurity services. Much of this work is preventative. Its success is often measured by what does not happen, floods avoided, land stabilised, contamination prevented, which makes it easy to overlook and easy to undervalue.

This isn’t about defending Regional Councils as institutions. I’m not arguing that structures should never change. Public institutions should always be open to scrutiny and, where necessary, reform. What matters is how any reorganisation is designed, and whether it properly recognises the essential, foundational work that underpins regions like Hawke’s Bay.

If councils are amalgamated or governance arrangements reshaped, then soil conservation, river management, flood protection and water security must be front and centre of the new system, not pushed to the margins or treated as less important because their benefits are not always visible. They must maintain a regional perspective. The risk isn’t reform itself. The risk is reform that proceeds without a clear understanding of what this work does, why it exists, and what it costs when it fails. As a region which is only just recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle, we know that this work is the most important planning we can be doing.

So the real question isn’t whether Regional Councils should exist in their current form. It’s whether any future system is built with a proper understanding that integrated catchment management is not an optional environmental add-on, but the quiet infrastructure on which Hawke’s Bay’s prosperity depends.

That’s the conversation I think we need to have. 

Sophie Siers is the Chair of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.