the option to significantly accelerate three‑waters investment, and the option to accelerate the cycling network programme. These two matters are now being linked in ways that imply one decision caused the other. That is not the case – I doubt any councillor of any political persuasion would support that claim. Tamatha Paul, now a Green party MP, has been singled out for particular criticism, unfairly in my view. She led the amendment to the LTP. Now the allegation is that she took funding from pipes to build cycleways and the result is the failure at Moa Point. It’s not. Here I set out what each decision actually involved and how they related — or did not relate — to one another.
During LTP deliberations, councillors considered several investment pathways for the city’s water infrastructure. There was the ‘maintain’ Option 1; Option 2 of enhanced capital investment of $678 million – the recommended option, and a third Option 3 of an accelerated three waters investment which involved a $1.5 billion capital investment with a rates increase of 5.85%.
Affordability was not the main consideration between the options. Wellington Water raised questions about deliverability. Option 3 was large enough that it risked exceeding realistic implementation capacity. Councillors needed confidence that any chosen programme could actually be executed. Officers couldn’t give it but Moa Point wasn’t the focus anyway. Half the funding focused on growth: population growth that was, at the time speculative, and hasn’t since materialised. The other half for network renewals — the underground pipes that transport wastewater and stormwater — but not the Moa Point treatment plant. Major investment for a new sewage plant at Moa Point was being committed to separately through the Sludge Minimisation Facility.
The LTP also required councillors to choose a preferred option for the city’s cycling network. Public consultation at the time showed strong support for “Option 4,” an enhanced programme that expanded the scale and speed of delivery compared with the more conservative “Option 3.” The financial implications of Option 4 were much smaller than those of the accelerated three waters investment option. Option 4 was expected to cost around $226 million over ten years, translating to a rates impact of about 1.31 percent, a change of just over half a percent.
Tamatha had a solution for funding. Council officers had identified approximately $100 million of insurance‑related savings across the ten‑year period. This was recommended to be applied as additional debt headroom to maintain balance‑sheet resilience. However, Tamatha with support from Labour/Green councillors and responding to community feedback, drafted an amendment to instead apply it to fund Option 4. The amendment did not remove funding from the wastewater network; the wastewater options were evaluated, consulted on, and costed independently. The decision to support the Option 4 cycleway was financially and procedurally separate from the choice not to adopt the Option 3 accelerated three waters investment programme (which did not involve Moa Point anyway).
Recent commentary suggests that choosing a different wastewater option during the LTP could have prevented the recent issues at Moa Point and affecting the “south coast.” But the accelerated three water investment option did not involve Moa Point. For the LTP the wastewater overflows affecting the “south coast” referred to the Karori treatment plant which overflows to Owhiro Bay, rather than failures linked to Moa Point and the overflow into Lyall Bay.
At this stage, the cause of the most recent failure has not been fully established. Flooding, mechanical malfunction, power systems, and safeguard protocols are all within the scope of the forthcoming investigation. Without knowing which factor or combination of factors was responsible, it is not possible to claim that selecting a different LTP wastewater investment option would have changed the outcome. That is pure mischief making. The LTP programme shapes long‑term renewal trajectories; it does not determine day‑to‑day operational reliability or emergency response performance.
Given these uncertainties, it is understandable that Wellingtonians are seeking clarity. But let’s leave the politics out. The city deserves transparent, evidence‑based explanations of what failed, why safeguards did not prevent the event, and whether the current investment pathway remains adequate. But until those findings are available, drawing direct causal links between LTP decisions made years earlier and the specific circumstances of this incident, risks creating confusion.
During LTP deliberations, councillors considered several investment pathways for the city’s water infrastructure. There was the ‘maintain’ Option 1; Option 2 of enhanced capital investment of $678 million – the recommended option, and a third Option 3 of an accelerated three waters investment which involved a $1.5 billion capital investment with a rates increase of 5.85%.
Affordability was not the main consideration between the options. Wellington Water raised questions about deliverability. Option 3 was large enough that it risked exceeding realistic implementation capacity. Councillors needed confidence that any chosen programme could actually be executed. Officers couldn’t give it but Moa Point wasn’t the focus anyway. Half the funding focused on growth: population growth that was, at the time speculative, and hasn’t since materialised. The other half for network renewals — the underground pipes that transport wastewater and stormwater — but not the Moa Point treatment plant. Major investment for a new sewage plant at Moa Point was being committed to separately through the Sludge Minimisation Facility.
The LTP also required councillors to choose a preferred option for the city’s cycling network. Public consultation at the time showed strong support for “Option 4,” an enhanced programme that expanded the scale and speed of delivery compared with the more conservative “Option 3.” The financial implications of Option 4 were much smaller than those of the accelerated three waters investment option. Option 4 was expected to cost around $226 million over ten years, translating to a rates impact of about 1.31 percent, a change of just over half a percent.
Tamatha had a solution for funding. Council officers had identified approximately $100 million of insurance‑related savings across the ten‑year period. This was recommended to be applied as additional debt headroom to maintain balance‑sheet resilience. However, Tamatha with support from Labour/Green councillors and responding to community feedback, drafted an amendment to instead apply it to fund Option 4. The amendment did not remove funding from the wastewater network; the wastewater options were evaluated, consulted on, and costed independently. The decision to support the Option 4 cycleway was financially and procedurally separate from the choice not to adopt the Option 3 accelerated three waters investment programme (which did not involve Moa Point anyway).
Recent commentary suggests that choosing a different wastewater option during the LTP could have prevented the recent issues at Moa Point and affecting the “south coast.” But the accelerated three water investment option did not involve Moa Point. For the LTP the wastewater overflows affecting the “south coast” referred to the Karori treatment plant which overflows to Owhiro Bay, rather than failures linked to Moa Point and the overflow into Lyall Bay.
At this stage, the cause of the most recent failure has not been fully established. Flooding, mechanical malfunction, power systems, and safeguard protocols are all within the scope of the forthcoming investigation. Without knowing which factor or combination of factors was responsible, it is not possible to claim that selecting a different LTP wastewater investment option would have changed the outcome. That is pure mischief making. The LTP programme shapes long‑term renewal trajectories; it does not determine day‑to‑day operational reliability or emergency response performance.
Given these uncertainties, it is understandable that Wellingtonians are seeking clarity. But let’s leave the politics out. The city deserves transparent, evidence‑based explanations of what failed, why safeguards did not prevent the event, and whether the current investment pathway remains adequate. But until those findings are available, drawing direct causal links between LTP decisions made years earlier and the specific circumstances of this incident, risks creating confusion.
Sean Rush was an Eastern Ward Wellington City Councillor from 2019 to 2022 and stood for the Act party in the Otaki electorate in the 2023 general election. He was formerly a Director of the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators. This article was sourced HERE
7 comments:
"Events do not just happen, but arrive by appointment."– Epictetus
This 'opinion' has (already) not aged well. There is no defense of Tamatha Paul.
As Chair of Wellington Water, Nick Leggett has done the honorable thing and fallen on his sword. Then, all of a sudden, in her first public utterance since the wastewater treatment plant shat itself, we see Tamatha Paul on the news claiming that Nick Leggett's resignation is "suspicious," and speculating that he's hiding something.
Not one ounce of culpability. What a piece of work.
As a born and bred Wellingtonian I can only thank my lucky stars I no longer reside there. There is no excuse for stupidity. The prevailing winds and sleeting rain alone prohibited cycling becoming an art form, back in the day. Many decisions by the WCC make no sense. The roads are narrow and winding and in my view cycle lanes should never have been a priority. However, this is what people voted for.
Can I just add. I was searching the Wellington Airport site for weather and flight info. Does anybody know what "Rerenga" means??... That's actually "Flights" folks. So, Rerenga first and the word Flights underneath.
I worked on the plumbing and drainage section of the Works Department of the WCC back in the 1980s. Problems with the pipes and sewage were known back then, but councilors were more interested in spending money on their pet projects (particularly the monuments to the mayors) than essential infrastructure. So it is unfair to say all the blame should be on the recent councilors, but they were in a position to rectify it and didn't.
It isn't correct to say the choice was not between water and cycle-ways. The councilors was involved in long-term planning, and spending money on one meant less money to spend on the other.
RE: 10.41 AM: Well, they had flights in 1840 doncha know!
How many waters? Just one thanks, and we’ll mix it all together near the beaches for the kids. 2023 elections were fear based, the electorate has had its say. Labour had a go but you can’t argue with idiocy.
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.