The immediate cause of the failure appears to have been a blocked pipe. The inside of the facility was flooded, badly damaging the plant.
Longer term, underinvestment made an incident like this almost inevitable. It was a question of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’ But so far, most commentary has focussed more on blame than understanding why this is so.
Former city councillor Simon Woolf blamed the disaster on a 2021 Council vote on Wellington’s long-term plan. He framed it as a choice between spending on critical infrastructure and spending on cycleways.
At the meeting, Woolf argued that sewerage and water infrastructure should be prioritised. He and a handful of other councillors voted against increasing cycleway funding from $120 million to $226 million over ten years.
They lost that vote. The same meeting rejected an option to allocate $391 million to a wastewater renewal project.
Wellington Central Green MP Tamatha Paul was also a councillor at the time. She moved the proposal to increase spending on cycleways.
New Zealand Herald reporter Ryan Bridge put Woolf’s argument to Paul. Paul pushed back. She claimed that Wellington Water lacked the capacity to deliver the $391 million project.
Another former Councillor, Sean Rush, thinks Paul has a point. He noted that the decisions on wastewater and cycleways were “financially and procedurally separate,” and that the proposed wastewater project didn’t even focus on the Moa Point facility.
So technically, Paul is right. The 2021 Council meeting on the long-term plan did not make a simple choice between spending on cycleways and spending on wastewater.
But while Woolf’s analysis may be wrong technically, it is not wrong in essence. Cycleways are a ‘nice-to-have’ in a city struggling to manage the basics. And as Bryce Edwards of The Democracy Project has pointed out, cycleways are not the only vanity project to be championed by Wellington’s local politicians.
The convention centre, Tākina, cost a cool $180 million. The Town Hall restoration project is budgeted at $330 million and climbing.
The Moa Point disaster cannot be attributed to one Council meeting in 2021. It is much worse than that.
For years, councils have prioritised glamour projects over maintenance of essential infrastructure.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Former city councillor Simon Woolf blamed the disaster on a 2021 Council vote on Wellington’s long-term plan. He framed it as a choice between spending on critical infrastructure and spending on cycleways.
At the meeting, Woolf argued that sewerage and water infrastructure should be prioritised. He and a handful of other councillors voted against increasing cycleway funding from $120 million to $226 million over ten years.
They lost that vote. The same meeting rejected an option to allocate $391 million to a wastewater renewal project.
Wellington Central Green MP Tamatha Paul was also a councillor at the time. She moved the proposal to increase spending on cycleways.
New Zealand Herald reporter Ryan Bridge put Woolf’s argument to Paul. Paul pushed back. She claimed that Wellington Water lacked the capacity to deliver the $391 million project.
Another former Councillor, Sean Rush, thinks Paul has a point. He noted that the decisions on wastewater and cycleways were “financially and procedurally separate,” and that the proposed wastewater project didn’t even focus on the Moa Point facility.
So technically, Paul is right. The 2021 Council meeting on the long-term plan did not make a simple choice between spending on cycleways and spending on wastewater.
But while Woolf’s analysis may be wrong technically, it is not wrong in essence. Cycleways are a ‘nice-to-have’ in a city struggling to manage the basics. And as Bryce Edwards of The Democracy Project has pointed out, cycleways are not the only vanity project to be championed by Wellington’s local politicians.
The convention centre, Tākina, cost a cool $180 million. The Town Hall restoration project is budgeted at $330 million and climbing.
The Moa Point disaster cannot be attributed to one Council meeting in 2021. It is much worse than that.
For years, councils have prioritised glamour projects over maintenance of essential infrastructure.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
This article sums up the problem nicely.
However, Paul is not technically right in claiming that the 2021 Council meeting on the long-term plan did not make a simple choice between spending on cycleways and spending on wastewater, because she left out relevant information.
WCC has a finite amount of money to spend, so increasing spend on vanity projects such as cycleways is the same as spending less on necessary infrastructure, such as wastewater plant. I expect the Council knew that when they made their vote.
Paul’s argument is not technically right because it is logically incorrect, it is not rational.
If they had spent the money on vital infrastructure the failure would be a discussion about what was selected as the next thing to get working on. What transpired was a completely dopy unused virtue project so Sean is wrong.
More to the point it was a problem for years, I know Sean and he was frustrated as a member of the council by the lack of process and focus.
So technical discussion about who said what etc. are just BS. Suck it up, let them sit in their shit for the next 5 years and hope they learn, I'm not hopeful when you look at other socialist parts of the world.
What amazes me is the lack of questions to Wellington Water. Because they are the first port of call when technical failure happens. And this is, first and foremost a technical failure. Everybody who has something to do with water utilities knows that treatment plans are the most protected parts of the service. Money destined for something else would be redirected to make sure that they continue to function. How come they didn’t do it?
Wellington Town Hall has a footprint of some, 2700m2 and, yes, there are floors of offices and balconies etc, that make that larger, but so too, Takina, at some 4600 m2 of footprint. The latter is new and cost $180m and is currently 'bleeding' from a financial return standpoint, the other is old and so far is going to cost $330M and climbing with no 'return' in sight. Neither exercise was put to those that must pay for these nice to haves - the ratepayers. Yet, what does that tell you about the nincompoops that make these decisions? And, the election of whom comes from a cohort far bigger than those that must bear the cost. That, like the decisions, sounds entirely sensible .... doesn't it?
A lot of three waters opinion pieces after the predictable catastrophe. I know how I voted.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.