Improving the health of Lake Waikare and the Whangamarino Wetland is an objective few people would disagree with. But environmental ambition does not remove the responsibility to demonstrate that the proposed actions will work, that the costs are justified, and that ratepayers and landowners can actually afford them.
The Waikare-Whangamarino Draft Action Plan presented to Waikato Regional Council describes itself as non-regulatory but identifies a suite of actions which, if implemented, are considered likely to produce significant improvements in the health and wellbeing of Waikare and Whangamarino over time. Importantly, the plan itself acknowledges that there is no single solution to the complex problems facing the catchment.
That acknowledgement should be the starting point for a much more fundamental question.
Before spending an estimated $1 billion over the next 25 years, where is the comprehensive economic and environmental analysis demonstrating that the proposed programme represents the best use of that money?
A Billion Dollars Demands More Than Good Intentions
The concern is not that nothing should be done.
The concern is that a programme of this scale appears to be advancing without the level of economic analysis that should accompany expenditure approaching $1 billion.
The draft itself acknowledges that the potential impacts of proposed actions on other outcomes, including the regional economy, have not yet been fully considered. The options were assessed according to environmental benefit, technical feasibility, rough-order implementation costs and likely timeframes for benefits.
That is simply not enough when ratepayers, landowners and public agencies may ultimately be expected to fund the programme.
Environmental benefits matter. So does affordability.
Who Is Going to Pay?
The proposed implementation cost is approximately $1 billion over the first 25 years, with ratepayers, landowners and agencies identified among those expected to meet the cost.
Consider what that number means.
The Environment Court's interim decision reportedly referred to approximately 2,800 farms in the Whangamarino catchment affected by new fencing rules. If $1 billion were hypothetically divided among 2,800 ratepayers over 25 years, the figure would be approximately $14,285 per ratepayer, per year.
Clearly, nobody is suggesting the entire billion dollars will simply be divided equally among those 2,800 properties. But the calculation demonstrates the extraordinary scale of the proposed expenditure.
Even if the cost were spread across an assumed 200,000 Waikato ratepayers, $1 billion represents approximately $10,000 per ratepayer over 25 years — or $400 every year. And that relates only to the proposed Waikare-Whangamarino programme, without including other potential costs arising from implementation of Plan Change 1.
Before ratepayers are asked to accept costs on this scale, they deserve to know precisely who will pay, how the costs will be allocated, what economic consequences will result and what measurable environmental improvements they are purchasing.
The Wider Regional Economy Matters
The Lake Waikare and Whangamarino Wetland catchment is estimated in the commentary accompanying these concerns to contribute approximately $156.7 million to Waikato's gross regional product.
That means policies affecting productive land in the catchment cannot be assessed solely through an environmental lens.
There are economic consequences.
There are consequences for farming businesses, employment, land values, food production and ultimately the regional rating base itself.
The present Waikato Regional Council was elected with expectations of change and greater control over rates. A billion-dollar programme therefore represents an important early test of whether those promises will translate into actual scrutiny of major expenditure.
The answer should not be to abandon environmental improvement.
The answer should be to require convincing evidence that every major intervention is affordable, practicable and capable of producing the intended improvement in water quality before implementation proceeds.
What About the Koi Carp?
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the plan is the identification of four major environmental issues:
- Redesigning water levels in Lake Waikare.
- Large-scale afforestation within the catchment.
- Reducing land-use intensification.
- Koi carp control and localised eradication.
Of these, koi carp deserve particular attention.
Unlike several of the other issues, the koi population is not static.
The fish continue breeding and feeding every day. Their feeding behaviour disturbs sediment and contributes to the release of sediment and particulate phosphorus into the water. In other words, while authorities debate long-term programmes, the koi problem can continue getting worse.
Yet large-scale koi control is assessed as potentially costing more than $100 million and faces questions around feasibility, consenting and delivery timeframes.
Perhaps that is precisely where policymakers should begin thinking differently.
Pay for Results, Not Process
One simple interim proposal would be a bounty on koi carp.
Pay $1 for every koi removed and a $1 million programme theoretically purchases the removal of one million fish.
Would that solve the entire problem?
Of course not.
But it has one enormous advantage: the taxpayer pays for a measurable result.
Every dollar spent is directly connected to another pest fish removed from the ecosystem.
A targeted removal programme could potentially buy time while scientists and environmental agencies develop longer-term biological or technological control methods. The original commentary argues this would represent a comparatively modest financial commitment after decades of expenditure by agencies attempting to deal with the problem.
Whether a bounty is ultimately the best mechanism should itself be properly evaluated. But the principle behind it deserves attention.
Public money should increasingly be tied to measurable outcomes rather than simply programmes, administration and process.
Council Needs to Prove Its Case
Lake Waikare and the Whangamarino Wetland are important environmental assets.
Protecting them matters.
But protecting ratepayers matters too.
Before Waikato Regional Council commits to a programme potentially costing $1 billion over 25 years, it should provide a comprehensive economic assessment alongside the environmental assessment.
Ratepayers should be shown what each major intervention costs, what measurable improvement it is expected to produce, how long that improvement will take, what effect it will have on productive land and the regional economy, and who ultimately carries the financial burden.
Only then can the public properly judge whether the proposed programme represents good environmental management or simply another extraordinarily expensive plan.
The choice should not be between doing nothing and spending a billion dollars.
There is another option:
Identify the problems that can be addressed now, prioritise the interventions producing the greatest measurable benefit for every dollar spent, and require compelling evidence before asking ratepayers to fund everything else.
That is not opposition to environmental improvement.
It is what responsible environmental and financial management should look like.