Tune into news from about any part of the planet, and there will likely be a headline about extreme weather. While these stories will be specific to the location, they all tend to include the amplifying effects of climate change.

This includes the wildfire devastation on the island of Maui in Hawai’i, where rising temperatures have dried vegetation and made the risk that much greater.

In Italy, summer temperatures hit an all-time high one week, followed by massive hail storms and flooding the next.

• READ MORE: Auckland floods: even stormwater reform won’t be enough — we need a ‘sponge city’ to avoid future disasters
• National’s housing u-turn promotes urban sprawl – cities and ratepayers will pick up the bill
• We’re building harder, hotter cities: it’s vital we protect and grow urban green spaces – new report

Flooding in Slovenia recently left three people dead and caused an estimated €500 million in damage.

At the same time, rainfall in Beijing has exceeded a 140-year record, causing wide-scale flooding and leaving 21 dead.

These northern hemisphere summer events mirror what happened last summer in Auckland, classified as a one-in-200-year event, and elsewhere in the North Island.

So far this year, rainfall at Auckland Airport has surpassed all records dating back to 1964.

Given more rainfall is one of the likeliest symptoms of a changing climate, the new report from the Helen Clark Foundation and WSP – Sponge Cities: Can they help us survive more intense rainfall? – is a timely (and sobering) reminder of the urgency of the challenge.

Pipe dreams
The “sponge city” concept is gaining traction as a way to mitigate extreme weather, save lives and even make cities more pleasant places to live.

This is particularly important when existing urban stormwater infrastructure is often already ageing and inadequate. Auckland has even been cutting spending on critical stormwater repairs for at least the past two years.

A new report sets out the practical ways New Zealand can improve its urban resilience to flooding due to climate change.

But time, rather than money, is of the essence, @TimFWelch (@AucklandUni) writes.https://t.co/RrO48DP61Y

— The Conversation – Australia + New Zealand (@ConversationEDU) August 14, 2023

Politically at least, this isn’t surprising. Stormwater infrastructure, as it is currently built and planned, is costly to develop and maintain. As the Helen Clark Foundation report makes clear, New Zealand’s pipes simply “were not designed for the huge volumes they will have to manage with rising seas and increasing extreme rainfall events”.

The country’s current combined stormwater infrastructure involves a 17,000 kilometre pipe network – enough to span the length of the country ten times. The cost of upgrading the entire water system, which encompasses stormwater, could reach NZ$180 billion.

This contrasts starkly with the $1.5 billion councils now spend annually on water pipes. The report makes clear that implementing sponge city principles won’t wholly solve flooding, but it can significantly reduce flood risks.

Trees and green spaces
The real bonus, though, lies in the potential for sponge city design to reduce dependence on expensive and high-maintenance infrastructure.

There are already examples in Auckland’s Hobsonville Point and Northcote. Both communities have incorporated green infrastructure, such as floodable parks and planted wetlands, which kept nearby homes from flooding.

But the report’s recommendations are at odds with some of the current political rhetoric around land use policy — in particular “greenfields” development that encourages urban sprawl.

The report urges that cities be built upwards rather than outwards, and pushes back on residential infill development encouraged by the Medium Density Residential Standards.

Citing a recent report on green space from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Helen Clark Foundation report argues for the preservation of urban green spaces — like backyards — as part of the flood mitigation approach.

Preserving tree cover is another urgent priority. Trees help absorb rainfall, reduce erosion and provide essential shade and cooling in urban areas — counteracting the dangerous urban “heat island” effect. Citing data from Global Forest Watch, the report states:

Auckland has lost as much as 19 percent of its tree cover in the past 20 years, Dunedin a staggering 24 percent, Greater Wellington around 11 percent and Christchurch 13 percent.

Incentives for homeowners
Making Aotearoa New Zealand more resilient to extreme weather, the report says, need not break the bank.

It recommends raising the national minimum standards governing the percentage of the total area of new developments that must be left unsealed. This would ensure the implementation of sponge city concepts, and see buildings clustered to maximise preserved green space.

The government should also require local councils to plan for and provide public green spaces, and to develop long-term sponge city plans — just as they do for other types of critical infrastructure.

Neighbourhoods could be retrofitted to include green roofs, permeable pavements and unsealed car parks. Land use and zoning could also encourage more vertical development, rather than sprawl or infill housing.

The government could also provide incentives and education for homeowners to encourage minimising sealed surfaces, unblocking stormwater flow paths, and replacing lawns with native plants and rain gardens.

More extreme weather and intense rainfall is a matter of when, not if. As the Helen Clark Foundation report makes clear, spending future billions is less of a priority than acting urgently now.

Dr Timothy Welch, senior lecturer in urban planning, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

While ostensibly about improving Aotearoa New Zealand’s water infrastructure, the government’s proposed Three Waters reforms have instead become a lightning rod for political division and distrust.

Critics cite concerns about local democracy, de facto privatisation and co-governance with Māori as reasons to oppose the Water Services Entities Bill currently before Parliament.

With the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch now proposing an alternative plan, the reforms may be far from a done deal.

• READ MORE: The UK’s water industry is broken – here’s how to fix it
• 11,000 litres of water to make one litre of milk? New questions about the freshwater impact of NZ dairy farming
• If we want to improve NZ’s freshwater quality, first we need to improve the quality of our democracy

But behind the debate lies an undeniable truth: clean water is a necessity of life. In fact, 20 years ago this month the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights first affirmed that water is a human right.

The anniversary is a timely reminder of what Aotearoa’s proposed water reforms are essentially about.

Covering drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (hence the “three waters” label), the reforms would have a wider remit than the human right to water. They fold in environmental and cultural considerations alongside public health concerns.

But the human right to water, as well as lessons learned from implementing that right, have important implications for the Three Waters debate, not least around water quality and affordability.

An alternate three waters plan has been proposed by the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch, with control and ownership remaining with local councils, and the type and degree of iwi involvement decided locally.https://t.co/prVSbJuuSL

— RNZ (@radionz) October 31, 2022

A fragile right
By acknowledging it to be a human right in 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights argued water is indispensable for leading a dignified life and essential for other human rights.

Since then, the human right to water has been repeatedly declared, including by the UN General Assembly and the European Union. This right is included in the constitutions and laws of numerous countries.

Despite this, 1 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and six out of ten people live with inadequate sanitation. More than 2 billion people live in areas of water scarcity, likely to become an even bigger issue due to climate change.

The human right to water covers five essential factors:

• access to enough water for drinking, personal sanitation, washing clothes, preparing food, personal and household hygiene
• water that is clean and won’t cause harm
• the look and smell of water should be acceptable
• water sources should be within easy reach and accessible without danger
• the cost should be low enough to ensure everyone can buy enough water to meet their needs.

Access and affordability
Internationally, there is evidence that the adoption of a human right to water has made a difference. In South Africa, where access to sufficient water is a constitutional right, the courts have repeatedly referred to the human right to water when determining government obligations around water services.

In 2014, the first European Citizens’ Initiative pushed the European Union to exclude water supply and water resources management from the rules governing the European internal market. This means EU citizens have a stronger voice in water governance decisions.

In 2016, Slovenia became the first EU country to make access to drinkable water a fundamental right in its constitution.

New Zealand’s Three Waters reforms are not unrelated to these basic issues of safety, accessibility and affordability. They aim to address significant problems with the country’s existing water services model, including ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, the need for climate change resilience, and rising consumer demand.

These all require a serious programme of water service transformation — one the government believes is beyond what local councils (which currently administer most water assets) will be able to deliver.

The projected cost is estimated at between NZ$120 billion and $185 billion (on top of currently planned investment), rolled out over the next 30 years.

Three Waters debates need to be based on fact – Ardernhttps://t.co/mNtkdKTjpw pic.twitter.com/NxvlJgtpeR

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) July 20, 2022

Ambition and equity
One way or another, the work has to be done. Last year elevated lead levels were found in the water in east Otago. Ageing infrastructure and increasing demand are likely to increase the risk of similar incidents unless expensive upgrades are undertaken.

Without reform, the government argues, the huge cost of those upgrades will be unevenly spread across households, with a substantially higher burden on rural consumers.

To be affordable and equitable for everyone, therefore, the Three Waters plan involves creating four publicly owned, multi-regional entities. These will benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility compared to local councils.

But because councils could still contract out water services for 35 years, concerns have been raised about the potential for creeping privatisation.

Indeed, similar concerns, including failed attempts to privatise water services in other countries, were a significant catalyst for asserting the human right to water more than two decades ago.

While international acknowledgment of water as a human right doesn’t automatically create binding obligations on New Zealand’s government, it can still inform the Three Waters debate.

Over the past 20 years, many of the benefits of this right have accrued from its ability to focus attention on securing high-quality and sustainable water services for everyone. That remains an essential ambition for New Zealand in 2022 and beyond.

Dr Nathan Cooper is associate professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.