IAWAI Water Services Strategy

I support the need for a strategy for water infrastructure, however, my concerns are as follows:
The strategy appears to inherit its premise from old forecasts, analysis and assumptions. The current, and likely future, social-political-environmental conditions have changed. A strategy steering the investment of multi-billion dollars of infrastructure to service growth needs to be based on current and relevant foundations and should therefore be reassessed to inform the strategy development.
I also have serious concerns regarding the impacts of proposed new wastewater infrastructure on public health and the health and vitality of the Waikato River (including its tributaries). As an example, the current proposal for the new Southern Wastewater Treatment Plant sites this infrastructure dangerously close to the Waikato River and its tributaries and has serious impacts on local flora and fauna. Additionally, in events of system malfunctions and failures (all too common) it poses extreme risk to pollution of the Waikato River and contamination of the HCC drinking water supply which could be easily mitigated through better site selection before the plant is built. This does not demonstrate IAWAI’s claim that its strategy begins and ends with the health and vitality of the Waikato River.
As this has been called a once in a generation opportunity, and is looking quite far in to the future, any strategy should consider alternatives, such as diffuse methods of wastewater collection and treatment rather than mega infrastructure concentrated at discrete locations. This is especially pertinent considering the recent examples of catastrophic failures of large, concentrated, wastewater treatment plants having disastrous impacts on the environment.
More broadly, the IAWAI Water Services strategy does not appear to adequately reflect the current risk environment, including economic pressures, interest rate uncertainty, and global supply chain risks. These factors affect affordability and project delivery and should be central to decision-making.
Finally, there are concerns about governance, transparency, and engagement. The community has not been meaningfully involved early in the process, and key decisions appear to have been shaped prior to engagement. This undermines trust and limits the ability for genuine community input.

Partially support

I support sharing the cost of water infrastructure if it is based on a strategy that has used up to date and relevant assumptions and analysis. If the strategy is to be based on old and outdated growth analysis and potentially invalid assumptions, then I do not feel that the investment burden should be carried by the whole community. In that case I would support a growth pays for growth approach.

Partially support

No comment.

Letter / Flyer, E-newsletter, Surveys, Focus groups, Events (online or in person), Antenno app

No

The Significance and Engagement Policy does not appear to deliver genuine early engagement, as the community is often informed after key decisions have already been made. In practice, this feels more like consultating on pre-determined outcomes rather than meaningful participation in shaping decisions. This approach reduces transparency, limits community influence, and undermines trust. The policy should require earlier, more open engagement with clear options presented so the community can genuinely contribute to decision-making.

Partially support

The proposed policy lacks transparency and clear criteria, risking inconsistent, unaccountable decisions. By failing to identify funding for waived costs, it shifts the financial burden onto current and future ratepayers.

No, these are my own personal views

Waipa District