IAWAI Water Services Strategy

I am in my mid-20s and in the process of buying a business in the Waikato. I am thinking long-term — about building something sustainable, contributing to the local economy, and staying in this region.
From both a business and community perspective, I am concerned about the direction of this strategy. A key issue is the continued discharge of treated wastewater into the Waikato River, particularly given how close it is to drinking water intake points. While treatment reduces risk, it does not remove all contaminants, and the long-term environmental impact is not clear. A healthy river is fundamental to the region — not just environmentally, but also economically.
At the same time, I am very concerned about the cost implications. Starting a business already involves significant financial risk, and ongoing increases in infrastructure costs, rates, or charges will directly affect viability. This strategy appears to involve substantial long-term spending, and it is not clear how those costs will be managed or who will ultimately bear them.
I would like to see a more balanced approach that protects the environment while also being realistic about the cost pressures on individuals and small businesses.

Partially support

I support the principle that growth should pay for growth, provided it is fair, transparent, and based on clear evidence.
However, I am concerned that it is not clear whether the proposed approach is directly linked to funding infrastructure needed for growth, or whether it is contributing to broader costs. Without transparency, this creates uncertainty for those of us making long-term financial decisions.
It is also important that growth assumptions are realistic. If projections are overstated, there is a risk of investing in infrastructure that is not needed, with costs being passed on regardless.
For someone investing in a business, predictability and fairness in costs are critical, so this approach needs to be clearly justified and carefully implemented.
I have concerns about the use of growth charges in their current form.
While I understand the intention, there is not enough clear evidence explaining how these charges have been determined or why they are necessary. Without that, they risk being seen as arbitrary and could discourage investment.
There is also a risk that these charges will flow through into higher costs for businesses and customers, contributing to broader cost-of-living pressures. For small and new businesses, even relatively small increases in costs can have a significant impact.
If growth charges are introduced, they need to be transparent, evidence-based, and carefully designed so they do not create barriers to economic activity.

Partially support

Yes, I partially support treating secondary minor dwellings as ½ HUE.
These types of dwellings can help improve housing availability and affordability, which is important for both employees and the wider community. They typically place less demand on infrastructure and should be treated accordingly. I belive these and all houses should be based on a comsumpotion system rather than a fixed fee. This allows for a fair, equitable payment system (many of these dwelings/ granny flats are low volume users).
Encouraging practical and flexible housing solutions supports both economic and social outcomes.

Website, Social media, Public signage, Letter / Flyer, E-newsletter, Apps, Focus groups, Events (online or in person), Antenno app

No

From my perspective, engagement has not felt early or meaningful.
Many people only become aware of these proposals once they are already well advanced, which limits the ability to provide genuine input. For decisions that will have long-term financial and environmental impacts, it is important that engagement happens earlier and includes a range of realistic options.
Better engagement would help build confidence and ensure decisions reflect the needs of the community and local economy.

Partially support

I support the intent of the policy, particularly where it provides relief in genuine cases such as hardship, community organisations, or natural disasters. However, in its current form the policy is too open-ended and relies heavily on discretionary judgement, which creates risk around inconsistent decision-making and potential misuse of public funds.
There is a lack of clear criteria and transparency around how waivers are assessed and approved. The ability to grant waivers under broad terms such as what is considered “just and equitable,” combined with delegated authority and no requirement for public reporting, leaves the process open to bias or perceived unfairness.
I would support the policy if it included stricter guidelines and accountability measures, such as clearly defined eligibility categories (e.g. social housing, verified hardship, community services), objective assessment criteria, and public reporting of waivers granted. This would ensure fairness, consistency, and maintain public trust while still achieving the policy’s intent

No, these are my own personal views

Te awamutu

Waipa District