IAWAI Water Services Strategy

I am a Waikato resident providing feedback on the IAWAI Water Services Strategy. While I recognise and support the intention of investing in water infrastructure, I am concerned that the strategy does not adequately address system resilience in a manner that reflects current and emerging risks.
Although the strategy references resilience, I do not consider that it demonstrates sufficiently robust or practical contingency planning. Given the increasing frequency of wastewater system failures across New Zealand, this represents a significant and unacceptable risk for our region.
I am particularly concerned about:
The lack of detailed contingency planning for system failures
Continued reliance on large, highly centralised infrastructure systems
Insufficient recognition of climate-related stressors, including flooding, power outages, and asset failure
Limited transparency around emergency response capability and preparedness
Recent failures of wastewater treatment plants across the country demonstrate that system breakdowns are not theoretical risks; they are occurring with increasing frequency and often result in untreated or partially treated wastewater entering waterways.
The strategy appears to assume a high level of operational continuity and does not adequately address how failures would be managed when they occur. A highly centralised infrastructure model increases systemic risk, as the failure of a single component can have widespread consequences.
I also see limited evidence that the strategy has been rigorously stress-tested against extreme but plausible scenarios, including:
Flood events overwhelming infrastructure capacity
Mechanical or electrical system failures
Population growth or demand exceeding projected assumptions
If these issues are not adequately addressed, I am concerned this could lead to:
An increased likelihood of untreated or partially treated discharges into the Waikato River
Heightened public health risks from exposure to contaminated water
Further erosion of public trust in water governance and decision-making
High-cost emergency responses and reactive, unplanned expenditure
To strengthen the strategy’s resilience framework, I recommend that IAWAI:
Undertake an independent resilience and failure-preparedness audit of the proposed system
Develop and publicly release detailed contingency and failure response plans
Consider modular infrastructure alternatives to reduce systemic risk
Incorporate comprehensive climate stress-testing into all infrastructure planning and decision-making
Resilience must be more than a lofty goal; it must be demonstrable, tested, and transparent. Without this, I believe the strategy risks delivering a system that is not fit for the realities we are already facing and will increasingly encounter in the future.
From a financial point of view, I am very concerned that this strategy does not properly consider the large and long-term cost it will place on ratepayers. It relies heavily on borrowing money and adding new growth charges, but it does not clearly show that past growth has failed to pay for the infrastructure it needed. Without clear and transparent modelling, there is a real risk that decisions are being made using inaccurate assumptions rather than real demand.
I am also concerned that the rules around development contributions are inconsistent, and that discretionary waivers could be applied. This creates a risk that costs will not be shared fairly, and that existing ratepayers will end up paying for infrastructure that should be funded by new development.
In addition, the strategy appears to focus on building large new infrastructure instead of making better use of what already exists. Evidence shows large amounts of water are used for non-essential purposes while significant volumes are lost through leaks and inefficiencies; very little treated water is used for drinking. This suggests that options such as better maintenance, fixing leaks, managing demand, and lower-cost alternatives like rainwater collection have not been fully explored. Moving ahead with major new infrastructure without addressing these issues risks locking ratepayers into unnecessary costs and long-term debt based on flawed assumptions.
The council has recently been called out for poor financial decision making this strategy should reflect the obligation IAWAI has to ratepayers to do better

Partially support

Provided it is applied transparently, consistently, and on the basis of robust evidence. I generally support the principle that growth should pay for growth, including the use of charges on new residential and commercial developments to fund infrastructure and services that are directly required as a result of that growth. In principle, this is a fair and logical approach,
However have concerns about how this approach is currently proposed. The strategy does not clearly identify that growth charges will be for genuinely growth-related infrastructure, as opposed to contributing to associated costs such as overheads, consultants, or inefficiencies within the system. This needs to be clearly identified so that confidence in the fairness of the approach can be maintained.
I am also worried that there is limited evidence proving that historical growth has failed to fund the infrastructure it needed . Without clear, consistent modelling and justification, the introduction of additional growth charges could seem unfair and inconsistent.
Historically growth projections have been over estimated, there carries a risk that growth charges could be used to support over-investment in infrastructure that does not reflect actual demand.
A “growth pays for growth” framework must be affordable, match true growth pressures, and be supported by clear and accurate financial information. It should also focus on modern, efficient solutions rather than relying on outdated options. If these things are not put in place, there is a genuine risk that costs will ultimately be shifted to existing ratepayers or future generations.

Partially support

As long as it is applied fairly and reflects the real demand these dwellings place on infrastructure I partially support treating secondary minor dwellings, such as granny flats, as ½ HUE.
Such dwellings often used to support older family members or extended families and make better use of existing homes. They generally have less people living in them and place less demand on services than a full home. Charging policies should take this into consideration. The risk of not applying this fairly would discourage this housing option which can provide positive social and housing outcomes.
I believe growth charges should be based on actual use and demand, they need to be clear and well explained, and remain affordable for households. A one-size-fits-all approach risks unfair outcomes it could also lead to the reduction in a housing option that currently provides positive social and housing options.

Letter / Flyer, E-newsletter, Focus groups

No

It feels that this is simply a box ticking exercise and that the opportunity to offer feedback comes after key decisions have already been made. In my opinion there is a lack of genuine transperency and opportunity for true consideration of community opinion.
My trust in the process has been undermined. I believe the policy must include more open engagement with clear options for the community to consider and that this should be offered in a more timely fashion.
The opportunity to provide feedback lacked widespread advertising, I discovered it by accident despite being a ratepayer in one of the councils involved, this also adds to my concerns that it was simply a box ticking exercise and feedback was not genuinely being sought for consideration.

No

In its current format the proposed waiver policy appears vague, lacks transparency and clear criteria. How will waived costs be funded? Such a policy risks shifting the financial burden onto current and future ratepayers for years to come. This threatens the concept that growth should pay for growth. I would like to see stronger safeguards, transparency, and clear limits, without this there is a risk that decisions will be made inconsistently and without public accountability.

No, these are my own personal views

Waipa District