IAWAI Water Services Strategy

I am writing as a Hamilton ratepayer to provide feedback on the IAWAI Water Services Strategy 2026–2036.
While I understand the need for a dedicated water services organisation, I have serious concerns that this restructure is being used to mask years of financial mismanagement and infrastructure neglect by Hamilton City Council — and that ratepayers are once again being asked to foot the bill.
---
RATES MUST MEANINGFULLY REFLECT THE REDUCED COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY
Water services previously accounted for approximately 30% of Hamilton City Council's annual operating expenditure and assets. Now that responsibility is being transferred entirely to IAWAI, I expect a clear and proportionate reduction in Council rates — not a repackaged increase dressed up as good news.
Proposing a 6.9% rates increase for 2026/27 while simultaneously offloading 30% of Council's workload is not acceptable. Ratepayers deserve a transparent, line-by-line breakdown showing exactly what Council is now responsible for and why rates are still rising. Vague assurances that the "combined total will be less than previously forecast" are not good enough — that forecast was already unacceptably high.
---
INFRASTRUCTURE NEGLECT — RATEPAYERS SHOULD NOT BE PAYING TO FIX WHAT COUNCIL FAILED TO MAINTAIN
The scale of investment now required — $3 billion over 10 years — did not appear overnight. This backlog is the direct result of years of deferred maintenance and underinvestment in water infrastructure while Council prioritised other spending. Ratepayers have been paying rates all along, and have a right to ask: where did that money go, and why wasn't it used to maintain the assets we were paying for?
It is deeply unfair that the community is now expected to fund the repair of a network that should never have been allowed to deteriorate to this point.
---
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PAST MISMANAGEMENT
There has been no meaningful accounting of how previous rates revenue was spent, why capital investment was repeatedly deferred, or who is responsible for the financial position Council now finds itself in. Before any new charging structure is accepted by the community, there should be a full, independent audit of Council's water-related expenditure over the past decade — and those findings should be made public.
Creating a new entity does not erase past failures. IAWAI and both Councils must be held to clear performance targets, with genuine consequences for missing them.
---
TRANSPARENCY GOING FORWARD
I note that under the proposed Significance and Engagement Policy, consultation is not legally required for IAWAI's annual budget even where it differs from this Strategy, or when entering certain public-private partnership agreements. This is a significant removal of public oversight and I strongly oppose it. Ratepayers and water charge payers must have ongoing visibility of major financial decisions — not just a one-off consultation at the start.
I am calling for:
• A transparent breakdown of how Council rates will reduce following the transfer of water services to IAWAI
• An independent review of past water infrastructure spending and deferred maintenance
• Clear, enforceable performance and accountability targets for IAWAI
• Ongoing public reporting on IAWAI's financials and major contracts
• Genuine consultation rights retained for significant budget changes
Hamiltonians deserve better than being told to trust a system that has already let them down. I expect this submission to be taken seriously and addressed directly in Council's response to this consultation.

Yes

It must be clearly established that IAWAI growth charges do not duplicate existing development contributions already paid at consent stage. Developers must not be permitted to pass growth charges through to buyers as an additional cost on top of what has already been recovered through the sale price. IAWAI should publish a clear breakdown confirming there is no double charging across development contributions, connection fees, and growth charges — otherwise this simply becomes another cost ultimately borne by the homeowner, not the developer.

Yes,

A secondary minor dwelling typically houses 1-2 occupants and places significantly less demand on water and wastewater infrastructure than a full dwelling. In most cases it also shares an existing connection to the network rather than requiring a new one. Charging a full HUE would be disproportionate to the actual infrastructure demand created and would discourage a cost-effective, low-impact housing option that helps address housing affordability. Half HUE is fair and logical.

Email — the most direct and widely used communication channel is not listed here, which is a significant oversight for an organisation managing public funds and charging customers directly.

No

I do not support this policy as written. IAWAI is a publicly owned organisation — its staff wages, operations and infrastructure are funded entirely by ratepayers and water charge payers. That means the community has an unconditional right to scrutinise its decisions, not just when IAWAI decides it's convenient to ask us.
The exemption from consulting on the annual budget removes the most basic financial accountability to the public who fund it. The ability to enter private partnership agreements without public disclosure is completely unacceptable for an organisation that exists solely to serve and is paid for by the community. The clause allowing IAWAI to self-determine that it already understands community views — and skip consultation on that basis — is wide open to abuse.
We are not customers of a private company who can take or leave a service. We are the owners. IAWAI works for us, not the other way around. This policy as written gives IAWAI far too much discretion to avoid accountability while managing public infrastructure that the community has paid for and continues to fund through their rates and water charges. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten to reflect that reality.

Partially support

While I support the principle of a waiver system, this policy has significant problems that need addressing.
Limiting leak waivers to 50% of excess charges for undetected underground leaks is fundamentally unfair. A property owner cannot be held financially responsible for water they had no reasonable way of knowing was being lost. The waiver should cover the full excess charge for genuinely undetected leaks.
The five year limit on leak waivers is arbitrary and punishes people for bad luck rather than negligence. Each case should be assessed on its merits.
The inconsistency between HCC and WDC criteria for the same charges from the same organisation is inequitable. People on either side of a boundary line are paying the same organisation for the same service — they should have the same waiver rights.
The annual reapplication burden placed on not-for-profit community organisations is excessive and unreasonable. These organisations are already operating on minimal resources serving the community. A rolling approval reviewed only when circumstances change would be far more appropriate.
IAWAI is a publicly funded organisation. Its waiver policy should err on the side of fairness to the public, not protect its own revenue.

No, these are my own personal views