IAWAI Water Services Strategy

I am a 23-year-old living in the Waikato, and I care about clean water, public health, and the future of our river.
I’m worried that this strategy talks about improving river health and making it safe to gather food from the river, but it doesn’t match what science actually tells us.
Current wastewater treatment does not fully remove things like medicines, hormones, and drugs like cocaine from wastewater. These things still end up in treated water that is discharged into the Waikato River.
Because of this, I don’t think it’s honest to say the river will be safe for swimming or food gathering without clearly addressing these risks. Over time, these pollutants can build up in the river, in fish, and in the food chain.
This isn’t clearly explained in the strategy, and I feel important information is being left out. That makes it harder to trust the claims being made.
If this isn’t addressed, it could put people’s health at risk, damage the river long-term, and reduce trust in what authorities are telling us. This also matters culturally, especially for people who have strong connections to the river.
I would like the strategy to clearly admit the limits of current treatment systems, fund independent research on long-term impacts, and look at better treatment options or different ways of dealing with wastewater. Most importantly, public messages should be honest about what is and isn’t safe.
Protecting the river means being upfront about the risks, not glossing over them.
I’m also very concerned about how much this strategy could cost households over time.
The strategy relies heavily on borrowing money, but it still says it is affordable. I don’t think it clearly explains what this will mean for household costs over the long term, especially for younger people and future generations.
It’s not clear:
how long the debt will last
how much water costs could rise over time
how affordability will be protected if interest rates or living costs increase
Even small increases in water bills can make a big difference for people already struggling with rent, mortgages, and other basic costs.
If this isn’t properly addressed, I worry it could lead to:
higher costs for basic services
more financial pressure on households
bigger gaps between generations
people pushing back against future projects because they just can’t afford them
I would like to see clear, easy-to-understand information that shows the full cost of projects over time, what households are expected to pay, and what the worst-case scenarios look like. I also want to see other funding options explored so we’re not relying so much on debt.
A plan this big needs to work not just on paper, but in real life for the people who are paying for it. Without more honesty and care around costs, younger people like me could end up carrying an unfair share of the cost.

Partially support

I mostly agree that new houses and businesses should help pay for the pipes and services they need. That seems fair, as long as it’s clear and based on real facts.
But right now, it’s not clear where the money from growth charges will go. I’m worried it could be used for other things like admin costs or consultants, instead of just new infrastructure. This needs to be clearly explained so people know it’s fair.
I’m also not sure there is enough proof that past growth didn’t already pay for what it needed. Without clear and simple cost information, adding more charges doesn’t feel right.
Growth numbers have been too high before, so there’s a risk money could be spent on things that aren’t actually needed. That can lead to overspending and higher costs.
For this approach to work, it needs to be affordable, based on real growth, and easy for people to understand. If not, there’s a risk that costs will end up being paid by current ratepayers or people my age in the future.

Partially support

I partly support treating granny flats as half a household unit, as long as the rules are fair and applied the same way for everyone.
Granny flats are often used by parents, grandparents, or young people trying to save for their first home. They usually have fewer people living in them and don’t use as much water or services as a full house. Charges should reflect that and not make these living options harder or more expensive.
I think growth charges should be based on real use, be easy to understand, and stay affordable for households. One rule for everyone approach isn’t fair and could stop people from choosing this as a sensible and affordable housing option.

Social media, Letter / Flyer, E-newsletter

No

I feel like the Significance and Engagement Policy doesn’t involve the community early enough. It feels like people are only told about decisions after they’ve already been made.
Because of this, it’s hard not to feel like the consultation is just for show, rather than a real chance for the community to help shape decisions that affect them. I don’t feel there is enough openness or a real opportunity for people to have a say.
This has lowered my trust in the process and councils. I think the policy should make sure there is earlier and true desire for feedback that will actually be considered. There should be clear options shared so the community can genuinely take part in the decisions that will affect us.
Despite being a rate payer I didn't even know about the chance to comment, my parents were the ones that told me and explained how the strategy could affect me and that if I wanted to I could have my say. It seems dishonest for those who will be affected not to know that they could comment.

No

As a young person paying rates, I find the proposed waiver policy hard to understand. It’s not clear who gets a waiver, why they get it, or how those costs will be paid for.
I’m worried that decisions could be made differently from case to case, without the public really seeing or understanding why. If costs are waived, I’m concerned that they could end up being paid by current ratepayers or future generations like mine.
This goes against the idea that growth should pay for growth. I would like to see clearer rules, more openness, and clear limits so decisions are fair and people can trust the process.

No, these are my own personal views