If you have followed water reform in New Zealand, you have heard two names: Three Waters and Local Water Done Well. They are often confused, and people are not always sure which one is current. The short answer is that Three Waters was repealed and Local Water Done Well replaced it. This guide explains what changed and why.
The quick answer
Three Waters was the previous Labour Government’s water reform programme. Local Water Done Well is the current coalition Government’s replacement. Both aim to fix the same underlying problem, decades of underinvestment in water infrastructure, but they take very different approaches to ownership and control.
What Three Waters proposed
Three Waters was a single, top-down structure. It proposed taking water services off individual councils and placing them into a small number of large regional water entities covering the whole country. These entities would own the assets and run drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services across wide areas.
The model drew strong opposition. Much of the concern centred on councils losing ownership and control of assets their communities had paid for, and on the governance arrangements proposed for the new entities. That opposition became a significant political issue.
What Local Water Done Well does instead
The coalition Government repealed the Three Waters legislation and replaced it with a different philosophy. Rather than one national structure, Local Water Done Well gives councils choice about how to deliver water services, while still requiring them to meet financial and quality standards.
Local ownership stays. Councils keep ownership of their water assets, rather than handing them to large regional entities.
Choice of model. Councils can keep water in-house, set up their own water organisation, or join with neighbours to form a shared one. The decision sits with each council and its community.
New funding and regulation. Dedicated water organisations gain greater borrowing capacity, while the Commerce Commission and Taumata Arowai provide economic and quality oversight.
What stayed the same
It is easy to assume the two reforms are opposites, but they share a starting point. Both recognise that New Zealand has serious water infrastructure problems that councils have struggled to fund on their own. Both accept that significant investment is needed, and both introduce stronger regulation of water quality and financial performance. The disagreement is mainly about who should own and control the assets, and at what scale services should be delivered.
Why the distinction matters
Using the right name matters for more than tidiness. Three Waters no longer exists as a live programme, so information that refers to it as current is out of date. When you read about water reform today, the relevant framework is Local Water Done Well and the new water organisations being formed under it.
