Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury's regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.
The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented.
ECan has "created real policy confusion and inertia" and it will not improve without central government intervention. ECan has suffered from "institutional failure" and a profound change in approach is required.
To the cheers of the many critics of ECan, former minister Wyatt Creech recommends splitting it into a water authority and another body for its other functions.
The existing elected council should be replaced by a temporary commission as soon as practicable to give breathing space while a water authority is established.
Few can deny that ECan has struggled with water responsibilities. Many consents have taken far too long to process, overall water plans have been lacking and tensions between development and environmental interests have hamstrung progress.
While the report acknowledges ECan has made some improvements, it says these are not enough.
Questions have been raised about leadership in ECan and discontent has rumbled for years, culminating in a strongly worded letter to two ministers from all 10 Canterbury mayors.
Canterbury, including the vast Waitaki catchment, has about 70% of New Zealand's freshwater resources, much of the country's agriculture and half the hydro-electricity generation.
The review was at the behest of Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, and the Government claims it has not formed a view on the recommendations and will consult before making decisions.
So it must.
The recommendations are radical and caution and wariness are required.
They do away with an elected local authority (although elected representatives on the authority could be considered in three to five years' time) and concentrate more power in central government's hands.
They split water from land and air, those other essential environmental ingredients, and they are a model that might be applied to other parts of the country.
As Otago Regional Council chairman Stephen Cairns said last Friday, the report sounded "very scary".
It is so sweeping, and the cynics might say this is deliberate, that it leaves room for the Government to move without going all the way on everything.
The panel slices and dices the attitudes and practices of ECan staff, noting, for example, complaints about the "green" predominance, the inexperience, the arrogance.
In comments that must alarm environmental interests, it records the view that while the Resource Management Act is to weigh environmental, social, cultural and economic matters, ECan's focus is mostly on natural environmental matters.
Little wonder, then, that there are those who figure the review is a means to put in place more friendly economic development processes at the environment's expense.
Prime Minister John Key in his recent economic blueprint speech talked not just about mining on conservation land but also unblocking obstacles to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury.
A new water authority would do a much better job at that than a "dysfunctional" council laced with greenies.
Maybe, too, a water authority could introduce water levies and even water trading, changing the way this precious resource is managed.
Perhaps the water authority would become a pilot to be adopted elsewhere in due course.
No wonder Mr Cairns is alarmed.
ECan, under a previous chairman, Sir Kerry Burke, was riven by division and its record was poor.
But, as the panel notes, improvement is under way under new chairman Alec Neill - as it happens a former National MP.
Relations in the council are more harmonious, progress is being made on water plans and the water resource consent backlog is being caught up.
It is all too easy to go into any organisation and note all the failings, and all too easy for all and sundry to criticise an environmental regulator.
The conflicts between environmental, farming and hydro interests are often stark, and will remain so, whoever or whatever is in charge.
Decisions and processes will always be condemned by one party or another.
ECan's role, while it should endeavour to be as co-operative as possible, has not been to make friends.
It should now accept many of the valid criticisms and continue work to improve its performance and its approach, with the support of the Government.
Its failings should not be used as a wedge, in an ad hoc manner, to introduce new ways of managing the nation's water.
