Clutha fought its corner

• Published date: 04 November 2021
• Publication title: Clutha Leader

Unfortunately, misinformation, political meddling and racial discourse left the minister with two choices — back down or push on — and she has never struck me as a back-down sort of person.

I was proud of how Clutha conducted itself in the first stanza of these reforms, refraining from screaming blue murder like some councils, prematurely stating their positions and effectively excluding themselves from meaningful dialogue. Clutha remained focused on positioning our district as advantageously as possible.

We identified early on that the distinct differences between urban and rural issues meant it was critical we were able to separate the two if the best outcomes for all were going to be achievable. Why do I say this? Rural fundamentally was a governance and control issue focused on business models that involved only water, whereas urban is primarily an affordability issue involving water, sewerage and stormwater, which for years has been driving up urban rates unsustainably.

Over 95% of the rural water produced has an end use for farming practices and very little for human consumption, and yet if they were to be dragged into the reforms every drop would have to be pristine.

Ever-changing environmental expectations create an insatiable, unrelenting financial burden in the urban setting, and this has been reflected in rate rises that none of us have wanted to see. In June, council ratified spending $141million over the next 10 years just on Three Waters. That’s a staggering amount that demanded continued rate rises coupled with borrowing, and yet in the ensuing months new demands to discharge sewerage only to land could catastrophically increase this amount.

So, while the whole reforms have the underlying aspiration of better environmental outcomes, it was obvious to us that the rural water schemes are primarily part of a farm’s...