IAWAI Water Services Strategy

Yes. It is important to get this strategy right as IAWAI lacks direct accountability to the people that are impacted by their services. So, unfortunately, the strategy is all we have.
What is concerning is the apparent fundamental lack of accountability for water safety in the strategy. Clear accountability was an issue discussed at length during the Havelock North inquiry. It highlighted a lack of accountability at both a local and regulatory levels. This does not seem to be addressed in the strategy.
To me, this draft strategy is more of a wish list, with lots of nice aspirations and little in the way of a plan to achieve those aspirations. It does not address whether IAWA has the capability or mandate to achieve those aspirations.
The strategy is too focused on spiritual matters with little focus on supply of safe drinking water and wastewater services. I would have expected that the delivery of safe drinking water would be the paramount objective. Remembering that the change in drinking water standards and governance structures was driven by the issues in August 2016 at Havelock North where 45 people were hospitalised due to contaminated drinking water. This was not caused by a lack of spiritual awareness; it was caused by a lack of accountability at both a local and regulatory levels. Or, more bluntly, people appeared not to be doing the jobs with due diligence.
This was captured earlier during the reforms where “improve the safety, quality, and environmental performance of three waters services” topped the list of objectives.
However, the IAWAI strategy top priority is the river, see page 8 “This strategy begins and ends with the health and vitality of the Waikato River”. I would expect people's health to be listed as the first priority. Also, the water services only touch one aspect of river health, so making it the top priority seems somewhat nonsensical. How could this ever be measured? Protecting the whole of the river health is not part of IAWAI’s mandate.
I would suggest that this excerpt from page 8 would be a much better way to introduce the strategy. “IAWAI must manage significant population growth, meet increasingly stringent regulatory standards, and do so in a way that keeps costs as low as possible for those who ultimately fund this work”. Rather than have it buried in the statement from the Chair and Chief Executive.
It is also not clear from the strategy how success will be measured. IAWAI can measure delivery of safe and effective drinking water and wastewater services. IAWAI can measure cost effectiveness of that delivery. IAWAI cannot measure the whole river health, IAWAI can only measure its specific impact. IAWAI cannot measure how “spiritual” it has been with the river. For example, the list of Key Projects on page 19, lacks the “why” for many of the projects. I am sure there must be a reason for spending the money but if we lack a clear, up front understanding of why they are being implemented, we can never be sure if they have been successful or not.
There is also an assumption through this document that a larger water entity will be more efficient. See page 7 of the strategy, “OVER TIME, IAWAI WILL DELIVER WATER SERVICES FASTER, MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY AND MORE AFFORDABLY FOR THE PEOPLE WE SERVE”
To be fair, this has been part of the assumptions throughout the changes nationally. However, this assumption is about to be put into practice, but I see little or no discussion in the strategy as to how these efficiencies will be achieved. Growth paying for growth would appear to be the only idea discussed. But there is nothing about ongoing delivery and maintenance. There is talk of a savings (or smaller increases) from the current structure becoming IAWAI. Some group must have done that work so I would expect to see some commentary in the strategy as to how this would be achieved in practice beyond growth paying for growth.

Partially support

I can only partially support this approach as has only been presented from a single view point, that is the cost of development. But growth is much more complex that this, it brings cost and it also brings benefits to the community. Without balancing the two I do not see how you can make an informed decision.
My concern would be that, as a separate water entity, IAWAI can only focus on the cost, and the community benefits get lost.

Partially support

I can only partially support this as it is a very blunt way of addressing the issue of usage and is unlikely to be fair.

Website, Social media, E-newsletter, Surveys

No

1) There is no detail on what happens after engagement. Often, as ratepayers, we are asked for feedback, but rarely do we see how that feedback is implemented. There is a general feeling in the community that the council and associated bureaucracies ask for feedback and then continue with their preferred action regardless. Without that clarity I have little faith in feedback systems.
2) I do not think this document refers to the most recent laws passed by the current government. For example, sections 5.11 to 5.16. Therefore, I feel this document is flawed and should be written to implement the most recent direction by central government.

No

This seems overly prescriptive and confusing. It is also not clear how these change from existing requirements as part of the rates bill. Without that understanding I cannot support it.

No, these are my own personal views