However, while there is some logic to the proposals, obstacles are formidable, especially for Otago. While, historically, Dunedin was the natural centre, Queenstown/Cromwell’s growth in recent decades has made it significant and unlikely to take a secondary role.
Southland District’s proposal will win more support but perhaps should go further. A merger between that district and Gore, along with the assumption of Environment Southland’s roles, would leave Invercargill awkwardly on the edge. Southland is more unified and parochial than Otago, and much flows naturally towards Invercargill.
When about 850 cities, boroughs, county councils and catchment boards were reorganised in the late 1980s, the process was testing. There was no shortage of opposition to the loss of local autonomy.
St Kilda generated plenty of heat and Green Island went to the High Court in a forlorn bid to stop amalgamation. This seems hard to believe today when the former boroughs are so obviously part of Dunedin City.
The principles behind regional councils are reasonable. They were to look after overarching environmental matters, and boundaries were mostly based on catchment boards and river catchments.
Their separation established their independence from territorial councils. This meant councils must apply to another organisation — and not to themselves — for consent for such matters as sewage treatment and disposal or landfills.
The catchment ideal ran into complications for the Waitaki. One proposal had the entire catchment in Otago. It also went against communities of interest for the whole area to be in Canterbury. Thus, a compromise split catchment was created in 1989. It has ramifications today.
A report late last week said a working group had been set up to gather views on the feasibility of the Waitaki operating as a single catchment.
Unitary authorities, combining regional and territorial responsibilities, were limited to few areas, notably Nelson/Marlborough and Gisborne.
Few changes have taken place in the 35 years since the reorganisation, although there are at present proposals in Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington and the Wairarapa. The large exception was the creation of the Auckland City Council unitary authority merging a regional council and seven territorial councils.
But the people of Southland are in it together socially and environmentally. Anyway, the priorities of a Gore or Te Anau town dweller might not align with, say a Waikaia farmer. Southland rivers, meanwhile, have flooded Invercargill.
Mr Scott points to the split between Nelson City and Tasman District. As the area grows, however, much of Tasman’s population is urban and an extension of Nelson.
A closer parallel is Gisborne. Its district council includes one dominant urban settlement and a large rural portion stretching up the East Coast.
The Local Government Commission would be more likely sympathetic to a single Southland council proposal.
South Canterbury, with two of the smallest councils in Waimate and Mackenzie, is another area for possible amalgamations. If that occurred, it seems likely Timaru would not be excluded. However, Environment Canterbury would be split if a unitary authority was proposed.
If uniting Southland is challenging, combining Otago districts and the regional council would be next level.
Dunedin City tried for the changes in 1989 and got nowhere. No wonder council staff quietly put aside the work seven years ago when councillors asked for a report on the pros and cons of merging its operations with those of the regional council.
Cr Kevin Gilbert, a relative newcomer to the DCC, has taken the lead in advocating discussion on rationalisation. He is open to ideas, including a coastal Otago and Central split. That, too, raises various difficult issues.
In the meantime, Otago and Southland councils need to co-operate and work together more. Some already do as in shared library services. Three Waters is an obvious area of acute need.
