Water-use fees on agenda

Last updated 23:25 26/11/2008

Relevant offers

Our Communities

Tee-totaller for one month Rifle range in firing line Selwyn schools booming Tourist bus crash Sod turned on new police station site Popular bar latest closure victim Richie McCaw of Science? University - $10 million lost Rip offs plague fundraiser Opening still a long way off

Christchurch residents could be charged for excessive water use under plans to conserve supplies.

The proposal is part of a series of measures being considered to curb Christchurch water consumption before the 2051 deadline when demand will outstrip the capacity of local aquifers.

Residents would be given a basic allocation of water each year, based on average consumption, and would be charged for water used over the allocation.

Water charging would be introduced if a range of other water-saving measures, including awareness campaigns, water-efficiency technology and greater use of rainwater, failed to curb consumption, council general manager of strategy and planning Michael Theelen said.

"It is not a priority option. We think we can focus more on things like improving security of supply and general efficiencies rather than going down the charging route," he said.

"But it has to remain an option for the future."

Theelen said a last resort was possible use of water from the Waimakariri River, pumped to the city and treated with chlorine to make it safe for consumption.

"Obviously, the priority must be for us to protect the aquifers. It is high-quality artesian water and a relatively cheap form of supply.

"It would be a very secondary outcome to take water from a different system."

If an aquifer was overburdened there was a risk it would lose pressure and become contaminated with seawater, he said.

A draft council water strategy will be considered by city councillors today and if approved will go out for public consultation.

Christchurch Combined Residents' Group chairman Ralph Ross said more detail was needed.

"The domestic front should not be the whipping horse for water costs. We need to know what the basic allocation is and how that will affect the community, particularly people with large families," he said.

The proposal is supported by environmental academics.

A study by environmental researcher Andrew Cook and published by Lincoln University this year found support for water charging.

A phone survey of 500 people found 91 per cent of respondents opposed chlorinated drinking water and 61% did not oppose a charging system.

Cook said this might change once a public debate about water charging began.

"Once people look into the issues and think it will cost them money it is a different story," he said.

"If it becomes a strategy the council wants to put in place, people will say we never had to pay for it before, so why should we now?"

Ad Feedback

Auckland and Nelson residents pay for water supply.

Christchurch has the third-highest water consumption per capita in New Zealand at 247 litres a day per person, behind Porirua at 352 and Tauranga at 250.7, last year's Quality of Life report says.

- © Fairfax NZ News

5 comments
michael   #5   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

charging for water is not an option.households will have no leverage along side farmers.If farmers were charged fullly for water use,the cost would be passed on to the consomer.Households have to bear the cost.I do not beleive rates will be reduced signifcantly to offset an extra cost.Once again the divide and conquer team is at large,divding ideology from reality.Once a company is set up to charge for water use it becomes an asset,before long it could be privatised to maximise profits,then all water users will be at a disadvantage because there will be only one supplier and we will have to pay what is charged.Say no to water charges from local/central govt.They dont make it.

cme   #4   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I grew up with fluoridated water, ate a few lollies when I could find a soft drink bottle to cash in at the dairy, didn't really drink fizzy or juice as it was expensive then, brushed my teeth and courtesy of the school dental nurses in the 1960's have a mouth full of large fillings and damaged teeth. Nobody in the 1960's came back from the 'murder' house without fillings. My 2 children aged 18 & 22 have grown up with no fluoride, and have NO fillings. Limiting the amount of lollies, juice and fizzy a child has and making sure they brush their teeth properly is obviously more important than fluoride. Oh and modern dental nurses.

Roger Thornewell   #3   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Christchurch residence use an average of 247 litres per day??? What the heck are they doing with it? Here in Melbourne Aust we not only pay for every drop of water we use, we are also restricted too 155 litres per person per day.

Christopher Webster   #2   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Yes, the council should move straight to charging for water. This would allow the urban consumers some leverage for an even playing field with farmers. Water should also be treated with floride so our children have the same level of protection from decay as the rest of the world.

It is a City Council and community health disgrace that the dental health of christchurch children are not only the worst in the country, but worse than most third world countries. This situation occurs because adults make a concious decision to withhold a health treatment which is within their powers to deliver. Now thats UNBELIEVABLE. Further, they are not even prepared to make available free floride tablets to ameliorate this situation.

Ian D.   #1   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

UNBELIEVEABLE. The residents of Christchurch face stringent water management policies while the farmers of Canterbury pump billions of litres of water per hour from underground Aquifers unrestricted. Does anyone see anything wrong with the thinking of local government ?

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content