Calls to talk about metering Wellington's water

All you yuppies against water metering are ignorant idiots. Water-metering is common all over the country- wake up to the 19th century! If you think these numbers are ridiculous and false, then you should have no problems paying for what you use since you think you're better than anyone else and don't use hardly any water!...How many times a do your sprinklers run in the summer??? You're probably all the same morons that think electricity comes from the outlet in your wall and gasoline comes from the gas pump.

I agree that there are many conservation/education measures that don't need meters that should be implemented. Wellington has a summer peak only issue which means that some of the water collection mechanisms people suggest aren't as useful as in some locations. We need to concentrate on garden mulch, not washing down paths, houses etc in dry times. GW doesn't supply water directly to households or businesses, only to the four Councils who then supply their areas. Critical too that the lovely Whakatikei River isn't dammed (damned!). WCC has already come out strongly against the dam option. Yes - we do prefer bush to an expensive dam! The current "standard of service" means Wellingtonians can use sprinlkers every other day - it is NOT prudent to supply as much as is wanted for that sort of purpose. During restrictions, WCC does water golf tees and some planting beds e.g. Botanic Gardens because they are costly to replace but they are a small fraction of our parks and gardens.

I support completing the district meter scheme (measures use in whole catchments such as Karori not individual houses) so we can identify large leaks more easily (some are NOT visible above ground). Best practice internationally is still about 12 to 15% "unaccounted for water"which includes fire service use, for example, not just leaks. Please email info@wcc.govt.nz about any leaks - and copy one or more councillors.

We can certainly collectivelyaim at better conservation - household leaking taps, way people use water (showers rather than baths, no sprinklers during dry spells etc.) sorted urgently - local Councils were waiting on GW water conservation strategy then the last GW council seemed to favour building more infrastructure (dams etc) but that seems to have changed so we are now working on water conservation planning together again!

Some of the per capita figures in the papers are a bit misleading in comparisons since we have the abattoir in Wellington City and many other cities don't have such a water-intensive use - though they have modified their usage considerably. When comparing, we need to check that it's residential vs residential that's being compared, not total city consumption divided by population. Almost all businesses are already metered so we can calculate the amount for the residential sector. I'd support a revolving credit fund for households to access money to change toilet systems, install roof-water connections for toilet and laundry and so on.

Overseas figures do show a reduction of use with meters but that seems to evaporate (excuse metaphor) in the years after installation. The best way to get long term water conservation seems to be if everybody (well, most people!) actually knows why and how to reduce water use. Programmes like Enviroschools are a great influence too. A regional approach to usage, education and examples of good savings tips would help.

Jeanette Fitzsimons ensured the water assets of this country CANNOT be sold to private interests. Of course a government could try to repeal that but most unlikely given huge outcry.

As well as doubts about effectiveness in summer conservation (compared with free mulch perhaps) meters do have downsides for low income - at the moment rates relate to property value and ther could be a big changeover in who pays from richer to poorer households - particularly unattracive at these times of tighter economic issues.

So where does the Greater Wellington Regional Council get its figure of average water use per person in the Wellington region? Basically it takes the volume of water it treats from its four water treatment plants and divides it by the number of people within the four cities of Porirua, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Wellington. This is a dubious way to present individual water usage, as there are other significant components involved. When you strip out industrial usage, community usage, council usage and leakage the real figure is somewhere between 200 and 250 litres per person per day. This amount of usage is typical compared to cities within New Zealand as well as internationally.

So how will metering reduce usage by 20% to 40%. It won't, international research suggest that a saving of around 10% is realistic. The problem is this saving is an average usage over the year where the supply issue is down to peak demand in drought conditions. People are unlikely to conserve water when their plants are dying, just watch the WCC water like crazy over summer; there is a cost to replacing dead plants. People won't save when water is so cheap; your water only costs you about $2 for 1000 litres (equivalent price to a 500 ml bottled water). Most people were paying over $2 for 1 litre of petrol ( a rise of over 50%) and consumption only fell a few percent. How much would water need to cost before people consider lowering their usage? The only way to get the price high enough for people to seriously conserve is to privatise the water so huge profits can be made.

So how much will the meters cost? To get a council contractor to excavate in the footpath, install meter, meter box, new valve and pipework, you wont get much change out of $1000 to do the job. There are nearly 120,000 properties in the region that will need meters, this equates to approximately 120 million, not much less than a Dam. These mechanical meters also need to be read, maintained, billed and replaced every 5-10 years because the accuracy deteriorates over time.

We should also question the logic of having such limited amount of water storage in the region. International best practice suggests that allowing for a 1 in 200 year drought is prudent. Greater Wellington is currently only able to provide for water in a 1 in 30 year drought event. What will happen to the region in a 1 in 200 year event?, how long will we be without water for? Have they taken into account of what it will cost the region to tanker in water if supplies are insufficient?

Why not build a dam now? How much will it cost the ratepayer to build a Dam? Probably less than a 15% increase in your water rates when financed over 20 years. Wellington City alone have taken in 30 million a year through water charges.

What is the real reason a Dam is off the agenda? It can't be cost, Wellington City want the ratepayer to fork out for another 100 million dollar stadium. Would it be that a few environmentalists have convinced the council that preserving a small amount of forest is more important than providing water to the population?

I think we should let the ratepayers make an informed decision.

So the council wants to meter the water and extract more money from us all, I also had a scenario where a broken pipe on council land on a communal acces-way was leaking about two months ago, it took over three weeks for a couple of council workers to turn up and repair this leak, it was like a small river. I called to complain several times and the reception I got from the after hours number was less than pleasant, they treated me like it was something I had done. It would appear that there is a collection of people getting paid to make ill informed self riteous and insulting comments to those who pay thier wages. Perhaps instead of insulting ratepayers with accusations about extravagance and thier personal hygiene relating to water consumption they should focus upon reducing costs internally that would be a start.

Metering water is great. You only pay for what your household uses. You don't end up paying (directly anyway) for the council's leaky pipe or subsidising him with the swimming pool and the shower with 6 heads.

A lot of water is simply wasted by council who won't, or can't, fix the city pipes. Perhaps instead of pointing finger they could start doing what they are paid to do. Paid by the people who they want to charge for water use. In the street where I live, one pipe leaked for six months before they fixed it. The other has been leaking many house uses of for a year, and still is. Several chain of puddle, and its on a slope. How many ltrs is that. If they will be as good at instaling meters as they are at fixing, not, their pipes, Wellington will be flooded. No dam will hold enough water. Ok, so if a contractor is supposed to fix it, it is still council. They were supposed to let and supervise the work. They obviously don't, or can't be bothered.

Average use in some other countries (yes, also civilised) can be up to 20% less, by using simple things as 6 litre flush toilets for a full flush instead of a half-flush. Or showerheads that allow you to control the flow as well as the temperature. Yes it works, has been around for ages but maybe not in NZ, so lets build a dam and go on wasting water -yeah right! Keep on using this historical tapware, and you're up for another dry summer. Only way to make people responsible for their spillage is putting a dollar value on it. Any complaints about yellow rubbish bags, guys?

as the pepole of wellington have alredy payed for water in there rates which incresses every now you want to sell there own water surply to a private company like auckland's big mistake if i lived in wellington i would smash all water meters asd they are put in

I will only consider water metering if and only if the council and GWRC and who/whatever else agree to (and most importantly implement) three things: a) fix up the 17% infrastructure leaks; b) financial help with household rainwater collection system and grey wayer system; c) proportionally reduce rates bill.

Until then, my answer is a big fat NO.

So it is ok to accept the extra rates generated by the increase in population but not ok to use that extra income to increase the required infrastructure.