Shoalhaven Water is big business in our part of the world. It’s one of the few council-run water utilities in NSW that returns a sizeable dividend to ratepayers. So it came as a shock when no mention of it was made in the NSW government’s merger proposal calling for the marriage of Shoalhaven and Kiama councils.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The award-winning director of Shoalhaven Water Carmel Krogh described the silence from the government over the future of Shoalhaven Water as “deafening” and expressed surprise that it did not feature in the merger proposal.
Just how a merged Shoalhaven- Kiama would operate with two very different and unconnected water arrangements is one big mystery. Kiama draws its water from Sydney Water under a separate piece of legislation.
There are big differences in how Sydney Water and Shoalhaven Water operate their pensioner rebate systems and how they charge developers.
The failure to even mention, let alone address this issue, in the merger proposal places the whole idea under a prism of doubt. Already, questions are being asked about whether the NSW Treasury is lustily eyeing off Shoalhaven Water as a big prize in any merger with Kiama.
Questions are also being asked about the future of two huge Shoalhaven Water capital projects, the Porters Creek Dam and REMS upgrades, worth a combined $150 million.
Some years ago, when Labor was in government in NSW and Nathan Rees was responsible for water, there was considerable concern Sydney Water had plans to swallow up the profitable Shoalhaven Water. When the then government guaranteed it would not happen, there was a great sigh of relief.
Former mayor Cr Greg Watson fears the government has Shoalhaven Water in its sights and that any takeover would cost the Shoalhaven about $2.5 million a year from the dividend it would lose. He claims privatisation would follow in the not-too-distant future.
Cr Andrew Guile fears rates would rise if the Shoalhaven Water dividend disappeared. And he is concerned dairy farmers, who receive free water through the REMS recycling scheme, would end up paying market rates for it.
The government should have addressed this concern in its merger proposal. And it should have timed the announcement so ratepayers and residents had the opportunity to make sense of the wider implications.
