Councils want more certainty over what the change of government means for their water assets and books as they prepare for their next long-term plans.
Three Waters was one of Labour's most ambitious, but contentious, pieces of work. It promised to keep rates down, while ensuring much more investment for badly needed upgrades to New Zealand's freshwater, wastewater and stormwater systems.
But some councils were incensed Labour's model took control of the assets out of their hands and put it into independent entities.
A rethink in April which increased the number of entities - with the intention to increase local voice - was not enough to sway opponents.
To the delight of councils opposed to the project, National promised to start repealing the legislation in its first 100 days in government.
But with their next long-term plans due next year, a lack of specific details around the replacement has some local bodies worried they may end up saddled with more debt in the meantime.
South Wairarapa Mayor Martin Connolly said it had left some councils which were continuing to borrow in a difficult position.
"They've now been left with some very big bills. Not every council has done that, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of councils are very, very concerned about what's going to happen to their balance sheet if water assets cannot be taken off."
Announced in February, National's 'Local Water Done Well' policy promised councils they would keep control of their assets.
It was music to the ears of Manawatū Mayor Helen Worboys, who co-chairs Communities 4 Local Democracy, a group of about 30 councils opposed to Labour's reforms.
With National now set to form the next government Worboys was pleased the repeal would be swift, but said the devil would be in the detail over National's replacement legislation and its funding model.
"It's one thing to say 'repeal', but you need to replace it at the same time so everybody is on the same page, we know what we're working to, and we can carry on having those discussions under a timeframe to introduce whatever this new replacement model looks like."
National intended to keep water services regulator Taumata Arowai, and keep it focused on water quality regulation, as well as the new Water Infrastructure Regulator within the Commerce Commission - which would focus on investment and pricing.
To allow for balance-sheet separation, National's plan would give local bodies the option to set up council-controlled organisations to access funds and invest in the infrastructure, but it expected councils to choose whichever model suited them best.
Different councils were at different stages of readiness. Napier Mayor Kirsten Wise wanted to band together with the other councils in Hawke's Bay to establish a regional CCO, something Labour's plan would not allow.
"We have been advocating the whole way for our own Hawke's Bay model, which we have a lot of confidence in and which has been endorsed by our community. So that will be our starting position with the incoming government," she said.
Wise expected the regional model would still require some legislative changes, so she was looking forward to having that conversation with the incoming government.
"It is a wait-and-see. Obviously National has said that they will repeal the [Three] Waters legislation that's gone through - they haven't given a great amount of detail of what they're intending to replace that with."
Other councils have continued to borrow to fund their infrastructure, anticipating Labour's entities would take on the assets and the debt.
Now, with the entities set to be scrapped, that debt will stay with the councils.
Without the Crown holding the debt, ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's could downgrade councils, in turn making it even harder to borrow.
But Lower Hutt Mayor Campbell Barry, who has kept up the borrowing, said not investing would have just kicked the can down the road.
"We're trying to do the right thing by our city and the investment that's required, but it may actually put us in a really difficult position if there is serious delay and uncertainty over the next six to 12 months.
"So it's frustrating, but at the end of the day, the work needs to be done. So it is the right thing to do, it just puts financial pressure on us as a council."
To avoid the downgrade, the council could put up rates significantly - but that, Barry said, was the last thing it wanted to do.
"That's totally unpalatable in the current economic climate and for our residents, so it is a really difficult position that councils are being put in."
During the election campaign, National made reassuring noises about stepping in if councils could not transition to a sustainable financial model - with one-off funding on a case-by-case basis. It would likely be a last resort, if councils had exhausted other options.
"At the moment we'd need to scope the size of that with the relevant councils, because everyone is in a different position," the party's local government spokesperson Simon Watts said in October.
Watts said there was a provision for the funding, but detail was light: specific funding for council support was not mentioned in National's fiscal plan, although the party did set aside $9.9b of operating spending and an $8b multi-year capital allowance as buffers.
Local Government New Zealand president Sam Broughton, the mayor of Selwyn, said councils would be wanting the specifics soon, with revisions to their 10-year plans due next year.
"We need to know as soon as the government's formed what they intend there, and even if we hear about that early in the new year, it's going to be pretty late for councils to have that inserted into draft long-term plans to then consult with the community. So the sooner the better, really."
Broughton said the uncertainty did not leave local government in a comfortable space, and could mean having to change aspects of their plans they had previously been certain of.
"Councils will have to talk to ratepayers about them funding all of the gap, and what that looks like. We've heard the government has said they want to be able to step in and support some of that, but until we have detail around it, it's really hard for councils to guess numbers, that's not good leadership."
Barry, meanwhile, said simply not planning for future investment would put the council in a further hole with the backlog which already exists.
"We really need to get on top of this problem as a country. And I do hope that it is at the top of the list for National and its coalition partners to deal with."
Connolly believed National had not announced any serious numbers and the sooner they did, the happier councils would be.
"National has said 'oh, well, we might be prepared to help here or there' but they've got no money attached to it that would reassure any of us that this was not going to be a highly fraught area."
Connolly said nobody could afford to keep with the status quo. On that point, councils all seemed to agree.
RNZ
