PDA

View Full Version : Labour to Tax Water



minimoke
10-08-2017, 06:15 AM
I'd like to be able ot comment on the policy - but there isnt one. Seems the idea will go out to consultation after the election.

So after a quick scan I may be able to support a tax on bottled water for export. Except tax is already being raised from the GSt and PAYE generated by the businesses bottling the water.

As for farmers, they may as well look at a tax on sunshine as well.

That said I wouldnt mind a bit of a tax going on the water going into Coke

artemis
10-08-2017, 06:33 AM
Never really understood why people get knickers in a twist over charging for the trillions of litres of water that falls out of the sky for free every year. Most of which ends up in the sea. Paying for infrastructure to treat, store or transport it - no problem.

777
10-08-2017, 07:47 AM
I'd like to be able ot comment on the policy - but there isnt one. Seems the idea will go out to consultation after the election.

So after a quick scan I may be able to support a tax on bottled water for export. Except tax is already being raised from the GSt and PAYE generated by the businesses bottling the water.

As for farmers, they may as well look at a tax on sunshine as well.

That said I wouldnt mind a bit of a tax going on the water going into Coke

I don't think there is GST on exports.

minimoke
10-08-2017, 07:56 AM
I don't think there is GST on exports.gst is on all local purchases like oil for machines, power and presumsbly plastic bottles

fungus pudding
10-08-2017, 08:37 AM
I'd like to be able ot comment on the policy - but there isnt one. Seems the idea will go out to consultation after the election.

So after a quick scan I may be able to support a tax on bottled water for export. Except tax is already being raised from the GSt and PAYE generated by the businesses bottling the water.

As for farmers, they may as well look at a tax on sunshine as well.

That said I wouldnt mind a bit of a tax going on the water going into Coke

Let them take the water for export, as long as it is bottled here. Heaps of jobs, so encourage it.

iceman
10-08-2017, 09:06 AM
John Key steadfastly said "nobody" owns the water. That was the Government's stance when it fought this at the Waitangi Tribunal. The Government starting direct charges for water is a major change and will open up a big can of worms. Maori will go straight back to the Tribunal. Ill thought out and dangerous from Labour , don't even have a policy ready. Just being populist saying they will charge foreign companies taking and exporting water but that quantity is miniscule in the scheme of things. Think irrigation, horticulture, wine, beer, meat works, you name it

artemis
10-08-2017, 09:54 AM
iceman, I expect them to backtrack on most of the policy manque and go forward with the export water bottlers only. There seems to be a groundswell of support for that, such as Bung the Bore. Whether that support base understands the issues is a whole other story.

ratkin
10-08-2017, 11:10 AM
They will be taxing the Air next, a breathing tax.

fungus pudding
10-08-2017, 11:12 AM
They will be taxing the Air next, a breathing tax.

But it will be a regional tax; will apply only in Auckland.

iceman
10-08-2017, 05:12 PM
iceman, I expect them to backtrack on most of the policy manque and go forward with the export water bottlers only. There seems to be a groundswell of support for that, such as Bung the Bore. Whether that support base understands the issues is a whole other story.

Yes exactly, just pure populism. The total amount of water exported annually as drinking water from NZ, runs under a bridge on the Waikato River in 33 seconds I read today.

fungus pudding
10-08-2017, 05:28 PM
Yes exactly, just pure populism. The total amount of water exported as drinking water from NZ, runs under a bridge on the Waikato River every 33 seconds I read today.

Every 33 seconds sounds like a lot of water. I thought it was very little volume as a percentage..

iceman
10-08-2017, 05:46 PM
Every 33 seconds sounds like a lot of water. I thought it was very little volume as a percentage..

You got me. Corrected

fungus pudding
10-08-2017, 05:51 PM
You got me. Corrected

Ah. That's better. I thought it sounded a bit haywire.

minimoke
10-08-2017, 06:01 PM
Yes exactly, just pure populism. The total amount of water exported annually as drinking water from NZ, runs under a bridge on the Waikato River in 33 seconds I read today.
Interesting example in the context of water, tax and money going to clean waterways. As a youngster growing up beside the Waikato you did not swim in it for its filth. Only good for the occasional eel or on a stinking hot day you would risk a paddle in a backwater eddy. That was many years ago and before "blo0dy dairy farms polluting the water!!!!"

Joshuatree
10-08-2017, 08:54 PM
Yeah but you can't drink that water that runs under the bridge over the waikato river.
Water charge sounds great. user pays then user will learn to conserve and value and protect the quality of the resource rather than the expendable opposite. Good one Labour. just another thing the nat didn't have the guts to look at and action,(protecting their base?).

Joshuatree
17-08-2017, 04:15 PM
I find this interesting and relevant to whats happening in other parts of the world. BTW its user pays in my city for water too.

D. PROSPECTS FOR WATER PRICING
Looking at the evolution of water prices relative to headline inflation from1986 to 2011, real water prices have risen similarly to those of oil,highlighting the scarcity of the resource. Should this trend continue, thesector is likely to offer further strong risk-adjusted returns for equityinvestorsxl.
Whereas most utilities encounter issues raising cost-covering watertariffs, the price of water has increased significantly in many regions inrecent years. In the US and UK, water tariffs have outstripped headlineinflation by 18% and 27% respectively over the past five years. Theequivalent statistics for the same period for Europe, Canada andAustralia show outperformance of 9%, 35% and 22% respectively in waterprices over and above headline inflationxli.

There is considerable disparity in water prices between countries. Theprice of a cubic meter of water in France, which is relatively water-rich, isabout 50% higher than the price of a cubic meter of water in Spain, whichis considered to be water-poor. Countries including the UK, Denmark andGermany set tariffs not only covering operating costs, but also coveringthe capital financing costs. Libya, Ireland and Turkmenistan, barely
charge for water services at all and taxpayers bear the entire financingburden. In China and India, water is very cheap as a percentage ofdisposable income, but this fosters over-extraction of water resources, asituation that will prove to be unsustainablexlii.
In China in 2009 the integrated water price of 36 large and medium-sizedcities went up 5.5% year-on-year. Larger increases can be expected inthe years ahead, given that many hike requests have been lodged withthe local pricing agency but have yet to be implemented. Recent tariffannouncements highlight the government’s strong commitment to raisingtariffs, an important factor in the future development of the Chinesewater market.

Joshuatree
05-09-2017, 09:59 PM
A fiend today said that when we started paying a user pays water charge to our council a few years back ,our water use in this city dropped 30 % overnight!! A great example of user pays in operation ;users will value water and conserve and look after it purity wise much more. And with more high tech stuff like Drones to check out which paddocks or parts of paddocks (orchards etc too) need irrigation we are on to a winner all-round.

iceman
06-09-2017, 07:17 AM
Which city charges you for water JT ?

Joshuatree
06-09-2017, 09:55 AM
Hi iceman. I will try and find the time to verify the above water savings stated but until then its not a fact; but it sure makes good sense. Thanks for your question jt

jonu
06-09-2017, 10:05 AM
Which city charges you for water JT ?

Good question iceman.

They don't charge him for water. They charge him for the utilities cost. When a farmer uses his own bore to irrigate there are no utilities costs. He pays for the bore and piping himself. That is why he only pays a consent fee. Labour have no idea of the complexity of taking ownership of water, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. Their first hurdle will of course be the Treaty.

blackcap
06-09-2017, 10:11 AM
Which city charges you for water JT ?

I think the Kapiti Coast Council charges for water usage. Rates dropped to accommodate a water levy. Water usage did drop.

Joshuatree
06-09-2017, 10:20 AM
Misinformation from national right all the way to its acolytes. i thought maybe you were different jonu,shame on you.
We pay by the cubic metre here is $1.83 per cubic metre including GST. You have no idea or credibility,tui.

Joshuatree
06-09-2017, 10:23 AM
I think the Kapiti Coast Council charges for water usage. Rates dropped to accommodate a water levy. Water usage did drop.

Thanks bc. It stands to reason , hit people in the back pocket even if its tiny and they will save water and money, human nature, win,win,win,allaround.

iceman
06-09-2017, 10:50 AM
Good question iceman.

They don't charge him for water. They charge him for the utilities cost. When a farmer uses his own bore to irrigate there are no utilities costs. He pays for the bore and piping himself. That is why he only pays a consent fee. Labour have no idea of the complexity of taking ownership of water, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. Their first hurdle will of course be the Treaty.

That's how its done here in Nelson. I wait for JT to answer the question about which city in NZ charges him for water, as opposed to pay for and maintain the infrastructure required to deliver the water. Quite a difference.

I have just looked up the Kapiti Coast District Council's webpage and find the wording a bit confusing. But this is what they say the "water charges" are used for :
"Water rates help to pay for water collection and treatment facilities, our water supply network (e.g. fixing, upgrading and replacing pipes) and water conservation measures."

minimoke
06-09-2017, 10:57 AM
I think the Kapiti Coast Council charges for water usage. Rates dropped to accommodate a water levy. Water usage did drop.
Tauranga charges $1.89 per cubic metre or 1000 litres. Base charge is $29.

jonu
06-09-2017, 10:58 AM
Misinformation from national right all the way to its acolytes. i thought maybe you were different jonu,shame on you.
We pay by the cubic metre here is $1.83 per cubic metre including GST. You have no idea or credibility,tui.

JT, you are paying for the utilities cost of that cubic metreage, not the water itself. I don't need your shame brought on me thanks very much. It would be good however if you were to show some understanding of the complexities of this issue.

Your local authority does not own the water, so they can't charge you for it. They charge you for the treatment and delivery of it. An irrigator does not have those costs unless they are part of a wider scheme, in which case they again will pay for the delivery of it.

artemis
06-09-2017, 11:13 AM
Wellington City has optional water meters, about 1200 now. After the initial install charge, the cost is $11+GST a month and $2.32+GST per cubic meter.

Otherwise ratepayers pay a % of their rates (more or less).

Not sure how that compares to other areas, but for high priced houses with a low number of occupants it is significantly cheaper.

craic
06-09-2017, 01:20 PM
My neighbours in Napier Rural are all charged for water delivery through meters. The service is through to the road by their properties and because they live up on the hills behind, they have storage tanks and pumps up at the houses to increase the supply to a workable level. I live up on the opposite hill but I have no supply and no charges. My water comes from the house roof and implement sheds into a tank and is unfiltered or treated. It tastes great and makes very good Bourbon.

blackcap
06-09-2017, 01:34 PM
My neighbours in Napier Rural are all charged for water delivery through meters. The service is through to the road by their properties and because they live up on the hills behind, they have storage tanks and pumps up at the houses to increase the supply to a workable level. I live up on the opposite hill but I have no supply and no charges. My water comes from the house roof and implement sheds into a tank and is unfiltered or treated. It tastes great and makes very good Bourbon.

My brother gets all his water from his roof at home. He is not charged for it and I fail to see how a Labour govt can charge him for it. He does not conserve because there is no need to. Although when there is a dry summer he does use less.

Joshuatree
06-09-2017, 02:27 PM
JT, you are paying for the utilities cost of that cubic metreage, not the water itself. I don't need your shame brought on me thanks very much. It would be good however if you were to show some understanding of the complexities of this issue.

Your local authority does not own the water, so they can't charge you for it. They charge you for the treatment and delivery of it. An irrigator does not have those costs unless they are part of a wider scheme, in which case they again will pay for the delivery of it.

Wrong again. i have my account in front of me , i get charged by the cubic metre ; a meter man comes around regularly to read it. tui.
I am one of re 70% of nz who think this is a great idea too for the reasons i have stated mainly people will conserve more and value and look after the resource. Its taken all these years of national fiddling and not having the guts to sort out along with all the other issues, already well documented..

777
06-09-2017, 02:54 PM
Jonu is correct. You pay for the availability of water to your property and all the associated costs including treatment, not the water itself. However the charge is done by calculating the number of litres through your meter.

And if you live in Auckland you pay for waste water charges as a percentage of your water used.

User pays.

Jay
06-09-2017, 02:57 PM
In Auckland city you also get charged for disposing of the water - based on the amount you use- they take % of what you use - hence billed by the cubic metre (also to work out your portion of treatment costs) and say that % goes down the storm water so we will charge you X amount per cubic metre for maintaining the infrastructure
Always what I understood, you are paying for the infrastructure not the water itself , the amount used is to come up with a number - users pays - you use more water you pay more for using the pipes, treatment etc.:confused:

Just what I was trying to say 777 - beat me to it

iceman
06-09-2017, 03:33 PM
Of course Jonu is correct and JT wrong. No Council in NZ owns the water and therefore can not charge for it. This is the fundamental change with Labour's proposed policy and it will lead to never ending litigation by Maori and other stakeholders

minimoke
06-09-2017, 05:10 PM
Of course Jonu is correct and JT wrong. No Council in NZ owns the water and therefore can not charge for it. This is the fundamental change with Labour's proposed policy and it will lead to never ending litigation by Maori and other stakeholdersit will be intersting to see how that whanganui river negotiates now that it is a real person. I presume it would be able to prostitute itself by selling its main body of water to any one willing to pay the price.

Also potential liability problems - what if there is an oversupply which creates harm.

jonu
06-09-2017, 05:20 PM
Wrong again. i have my account in front of me , i get charged by the cubic metre ; a meter man comes around regularly to read it. tui.

JT you really should stop digging this hole for yourself. Maybe ask one of your more knowledgeable labourites for clarification if you don't believe me. Maybe this is the problem in a nut shell and no one in Labour understands it!

Joshuatree
06-09-2017, 10:26 PM
The more cubes i use the more i pay by what volume i use. ; looks like water,sounds like water, flows like cool, clear water of life.To me i am paying for water . My rates cover everything else. User pays hence the conserving since the meters were put in. People don't leave their sprinklers on all night in summer anymore.User pays(a tiny bit) and the funds will be directed back into improving water purposes in that area except our council use it for who knows what. Me and the other 70% of kiwis agree. Farmers , orchardists etc will all up their game and embrace new tech; drones for instance, new business's and jobs. WINWINWIN

minimoke
07-09-2017, 06:16 AM
The more cubes i use the more i pay by what volume i use. ; looks like water,sounds like water, flows like cool, clear water of life.To me i am paying for water . My rates cover everything else. User pays hence the conserving since the meters were put in. People don't leave their sprinklers on all night in summer anymore.User pays(a tiny bit) and the funds will be directed back into improving water purposes in that area except our council use it for who knows what. Me and the other 70% of kiwis agree. Farmers , orchardists etc will all up their game and embrace new tech; drones for instance, new business's and jobs. WINWINWIN
JT, I think you are mangling yoru arguments.

The reason you at more for the more water you use is because it costs more to pump it out of the ground, treat it, test and then pump it to your door. So you are paying for these extra costs.

I haven't heard that the tax on water is for conservation purposes - I thought it was a royalty to help get the waterways cleaner

Broadly speaking we don't need to conserve water - we are fortunate that we have an over-abundance of the stuff

iceman
07-09-2017, 06:45 AM
JT, I think you are mangling yoru arguments.

The reason you at more for the more water you use is because it costs more to pump it out of the ground, treat it, test and then pump it to your door. So you are paying for these extra costs.

I haven't heard that the tax on water is for conservation purposes - I thought it was a royalty to help get the waterways cleaner

Broadly speaking we don't need to conserve water - we are fortunate that we have an over-abundance of the stuff

Labour's candidate in Waitaki told a meeting recently the Council could use it for roads !! They are obviously not clear on what the new tax revenue is going to be used for

jonu
07-09-2017, 06:52 AM
The more cubes i use the more i pay by what volume i use. ; looks like water,sounds like water, flows like cool, clear water of life.To me i am paying for water . My rates cover everything else. User pays hence the conserving since the meters were put in. People don't leave their sprinklers on all night in summer anymore.User pays(a tiny bit) and the funds will be directed back into improving water purposes in that area except our council use it for who knows what. Me and the other 70% of kiwis agree. Farmers , orchardists etc will all up their game and embrace new tech; drones for instance, new business's and jobs. WINWINWIN

I'm really beginning to wonder if Labour's policy people (I resume they have a policy team and that Jacinda doesn't just make stuff up) have the same level of understanding as poor old JT.

"Hey I've got an idea, let's start charging people for water, you know, the stuff that is wet and no one owns. It's a slippery little sucker and tends to flow all over the place and fall from the sky and stuff, but hey, there's a tax in there somewhere. While we are at it, air isn't much different. I know it's an old joke but we could actually tax people for breathing! Someone write this stuff down!"

Discl: I may actually not be quoting any real person, but I am scared I am

fungus pudding
07-09-2017, 08:04 AM
I'm really beginning to wonder if Labour's policy people (I resume they have a policy team and that Jacinda doesn't just make stuff up) have the same level of understanding as poor old JT.

"Hey I've got an idea, let's start charging people for water, you know, the stuff that is wet and no one owns. It's a slippery little sucker and tends to flow all over the place and fall from the sky and stuff, but hey, there's a tax in there somewhere. While we are at it, air isn't much different. I know it's an old joke but we could actually tax people for breathing! Someone right this stuff down!"

Discl: I may actually not be quoting any real person, but I am scared I am

Oh, you definitely am !! :scared:

Joshuatree
07-09-2017, 09:30 AM
No matter how you cut it,slice it and dice it., the water I'm charged for; you know the stuff that flows through the unmoving pipes; its a user pays system the more i use the more i pay. the more i conserve the less i pay, its a winner.:t_up:

artemis
07-09-2017, 09:42 AM
No matter how you cut it,slice it and dice it., the water I'm charged for; you know the stuff that flows through the unmoving pipes; its a user pays system the more i use the more i pay. the more i conserve the less i pay, its a winner.:t_up:

There is a reason it is important whether someone is paying for costs of extraction from source, storage, treatment, reticulation, disposal or for the H2O itself. And that is once H2O is charged for separately from the supply to/from site there becomes a question of ownership. How can some body be paid for something nobody owns. Which is currently the case.

We change that at our peril.

Joshuatree
07-09-2017, 09:49 AM
70 % of kiwis disagree with you, think about that.

777
07-09-2017, 11:13 AM
70 % of kiwis disagree with you, think about that.

On this thread 100% disagree with you.

iceman
07-09-2017, 11:24 AM
On this thread 100% disagree with you.

I suspect he is referring to a "survey" I saw somewhere recently which basically asked "do you agree to tax commercial water bottling exporters". Fairly shallow and avoids the big issue questions around this "policy".

minimoke
07-09-2017, 11:55 AM
I suspect he is referring to a "survey" I saw somewhere recently which basically asked "do you agree to tax commercial water bottling exporters". Fairly shallow and avoids the big issue questions around this "policy".
The survey was taken at a meeting run by the befuddled for the bewildered.

iceman
07-09-2017, 09:05 PM
JT has surrendered to reality and truth. Not like him/her to shut up !

Joshuatree
07-09-2017, 09:18 PM
Sorry to hold you up guys; spent a lot of time on shares today mainly in aus and had a friend around late so put on a Lawrence Arabia cd id just scored and cooked a great pasta dinner with eggplant ,spinach,olives spicy tom sauce ,avo ,mushrooms, fetta,garlic, onion fried in avo oil whilst drinking cabinet/merlot and talking about the film festival movies we have been going to. here you go, drink it in:)
Majority of Kiwis back water tax even if they face higher costs, new poll ... (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiVwcDj6pLWAhULfrwKHR2TBUcQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fnz%2Fnews%2F article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D11912604&usg=AFQjCNF_6InpJRKkYPba0MVwVdcCuPQHFw) cheers Jt

blackcap
08-09-2017, 05:40 AM
Sorry to hold you up guys; spent a lot of time on shares today mainly in aus and had a friend around late so put on a Lawrence Arabia cd id just scored and cooked a great pasta dinner with eggplant ,spinach,olives spicy tom sauce ,avo ,mushrooms, fetta,garlic, onion fried in avo oil whilst drinking cabinet/merlot and talking about the film festival movies we have been going to. here you go, drink it in:)
Majority of Kiwis back water tax even if they face higher costs, new poll ... (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiVwcDj6pLWAhULfrwKHR2TBUcQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fnz%2Fnews%2F article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D1%26objectid%3D11912604&usg=AFQjCNF_6InpJRKkYPba0MVwVdcCuPQHFw) cheers Jt

That's an online survey that is linked. So no real credibility to the figures provided. Self selecting etc.

jonu
08-09-2017, 06:44 AM
That's an online survey that is linked. So no real credibility to the figures provided. Self selecting etc.

And it still does nothing to tidy up the ownership issue. But then again, Labour doesn't like detail.

Joshuatree
08-09-2017, 09:55 AM
Labour has started something that national doesn't have the guts to do.National would rather lie and cheat their way back rather than facing the real issues they've avoided all these long years.

The detail will be created and worked out by the labour govt and thats the place to do it with full access to everything. I would rather a thorough and complete assessment then a shonky shallow mushroom approach as you seem to thrive on.
The stupidity is astounding here, thank god a new broom is coming.

minimoke
08-09-2017, 12:08 PM
The detail will be created and worked out by the labour govt and thats the place to do it with full access to everything.
Labour had 9 years with full access to whatever they wanted but still cant articulate any detail. That is incompetence.

Unless they already know the detail but arent telling. Which is dishonest.

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum your preferred party should have the broad detail in the lead up to an election.

fungus pudding
08-09-2017, 12:19 PM
Labour had 9 years with full access to whatever they wanted but still cant articulate any detail. That is incompetence.

Unless they already know the detail but arent telling. Which is dishonest.

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum your preferred party should have the broad detail in the lead up to an election.

You can bet your bottom dollar she already knows what she wants, and that will be what we get regardless of anyone else in Labour, or regardless of what her handpicked panel tells her.

jonu
08-09-2017, 02:54 PM
Labour has started something that national doesn't have the guts to do.National would rather lie and cheat their way back rather than facing the real issues they've avoided all these long years.

The detail will be created and worked out by the labour govt and thats the place to do it with full access to everything. I would rather a thorough and complete assessment then a shonky shallow mushroom approach as you seem to thrive on.
The stupidity is astounding here, thank god a new broom is coming.

I hardly think it is me who is stupid and shonky when I raise the not so minor issue of water ownership and the taxing of it to a poster whose comprehension of the issue has been demonstrated to be minimal.

Joshuatree
08-09-2017, 10:24 PM
Not aiming that at you personally jonu. Water use and water to use, using water.I pay a fee and thats fine.I conserve and value water more because of it. As all future payers of water use will too and the real winner here is the funds raised go back into water issues in the area its used; its so good its a winning proposition all around. Its an idea whose time has come.Im confident labour and co will thrash out the best arrangements for the whole of NZ to be proud of ,and down the track saying
NZ IS CLEAN and GREEN ..... AGAIN!

minimoke
08-09-2017, 11:00 PM
Not aiming that at you personally jonu. Water use and water to use, using water.I pay a fee and thats fine.
Its been said before but not getting through. So AGAIN you pay a fee for the delivery - not the water!

Joshuatree
08-09-2017, 11:03 PM
By the cube to all intents and purposes its the same and achieves the same purpose mm
Clean and Green ....AGAIN
Wouldn't it be great to find a way to get rid of that rock snot clogging our rivers too MM.

minimoke
08-09-2017, 11:23 PM
By the cube to all intents and purposes its the same .For all intents and purposes they are two completely different things. And if this is the best a Labour supporter can do in understandings the difference then heaven help us if Labour gets in.

Good luck trying to get rid of didymo - that's a hospital pass for anyone taking that one on. But lets learn shall we. The major lesson is don't let tourists in who bring this type of stuff on there shoes. And tell us who was in Govt in 2004 when Didymo was let into the country

Joshuatree
09-09-2017, 12:34 PM
Helen sneak it in in her handbag:)

Joshuatree
10-09-2017, 10:26 PM
Im optimistic mm that a way will be found to deal to rock snot in the future just as i am about stoats and ferrets being eliminated by maybe making them sterile or by some other bio/ discovery. Be great to find an alternative to 1080 which is temporary and divisive, for sure.

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 09:11 AM
Some farmers may have to pay $50,000 a year royalty for water?? I don't believe that bill.Scaremongering.
At 2c a cubic litre That would be 2.5 BILLION LITRES as much as 30,000 people use yearly(80 cubic m each)
Some farmers are incredibly inefficient and wasteful; they have to go or adapt and stop wasting our resource and contributing more pollution(nitrification with too much runoff)
A 1 or 2c royalty would achieve that almost overnight, win/win/win.

blackcap
13-09-2017, 09:19 AM
At 2c a litre That would be 2.5 BILLION LITRES as much as 30,000 people use yearly(80 cubic m each)
.

Those figures could well be right. I know that many farmers would use more than 5 cubic metres for 2 milkings. So that is already 5,000 litres per day. Multiply that by 365 you get 1.8 Million litres p/a. I think Bill may be onto something here.

My bad, I got a bit excited, its 1.8 million, but that is excluding trough water and then there is irrigation. Whichever way you cut it, a 2 cent levy per litre would be catastrophic for farmers.

jonu
13-09-2017, 09:26 AM
Those figures could well be right. I know that many farmers would use more than 5 cubic metres for 2 milkings. So that is already 5,000 litres per day. Multiply that by 365 you get 1.8 Billion litres p/a. I think Bill may be onto something here.

And that's before the farmer has filled his troughs. A dairy cow will drink 30+ litres a day. Heaven forbid he do any irrigating on top of that. I bet JT likes his milk and cheese though.

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 09:31 AM
If your figs are correct. They are being inefficient too imo generally. User pays no matter how small brings efficiency and conservation.
78 to 80 % of water is used in irrigation and about 3 % for troughs, milking etc.
In canterbury they are using 3 million litres per hectare /year in some places:eek2:. Nitrification plus!. Time for farmers to value their resource and become more efficient and conserving of our water. A 1 or 2 cents a cubic metre would achieve this. maybe all of us should pay royalty for the use of water. Id pay about $1.60 a year for my 80 cubes.
Labour should charge all for water - economist (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201858286/labour-should-charge-all-for-water-economist)

freddagg
13-09-2017, 09:54 AM
Those figures could well be right. I know that many farmers would use more than 5 cubic metres for 2 milkings. So that is already 5,000 litres per day. Multiply that by 365 you get 1.8 Million litres p/a. I think Bill may be onto something here.

My bad, I got a bit excited, its 1.8 million, but that is excluding trough water and then there is irrigation. Whichever way you cut it, a 2 cent levy per litre would be catastrophic for farmers.

Labour are talking 2 cents a cumec (1000 litres) and only for irrigation. Stock water is excluded.

iceman
13-09-2017, 10:53 AM
Where have you got that detail from FD ? Do you have a link. I think many people would be very interested to see detail on this or any other policy from Labour.

Snow Leopard
13-09-2017, 10:54 AM
some farmers may have to pay $50,000 a year royalty for water?? I don't believe that bill.scaremongering.
At 2c a litre that would be 2.5 billion litres....

50,000/0.02 = 2,500,000

2.5 million litres

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 11:23 AM
If so PT 2.5 million litres =2500 cumetres x .02cents =$50

freddagg
13-09-2017, 11:42 AM
Where have you got that detail from FD ? Do you have a link. I think many people would be very interested to see detail on this or any other policy from Labour.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/95889409/labour-water-tax-to-be-1m-per-annum-for-irrigators-and-water-bottlers

I have a mate with 3 smallish centre pivots and he reckons it would cost about $8000 a year

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 11:49 AM
Thanks for the article fred. very clear, its the irrigators who are using 78-80% of the water. They will use it more conservatively with a 2c per 1000 litre royalty on it with less runoff and nitrification and no further intensification which has become out of balance with the environment.

minimoke
13-09-2017, 12:22 PM
Some farmers are incredibly inefficient and wasteful; they have to go or adapt and stop wasting our resource and contributing more pollution(nitrification with too much runoff)
.
That i suspect is a townys view. Have you heard of evaportranspiration or know why its efficient to irrigate on a rainy day.

The cost of pumping water is enormous - do you seriuosly think farmers pump if they dont need to?

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 12:26 PM
Lots of great farmers and Irrigators; but when something is free , well you know what happens; its not valued or cared for; user pays will upskill with better more efficient, conserving ,operating with exciting new monitoring tech etct o support this e.g. drones.

blackcap
13-09-2017, 12:37 PM
Lots of great farmers and Irrigators; but when something is free , well you know what happens; its not valued or cared for; user pays will upskill with better more efficient, conserving ,operating with exciting new monitoring tech etct o support this e.g. drones.

I don't think you read the bit where it says that the cost of pumping water is enormous. It already costs plenty to pump water. A farmer does not pump any more than is necessary. No need for userpays.

minimoke
13-09-2017, 12:49 PM
Lots of great farmers and Irrigators; but when something is free , well you know what happens; its not valued or cared for; user pays will upskill with better more efficient, conserving ........
I see we are going to have to keep repeating it because the message is not getting through. The water is not free! It costs a heck of a lot to get it from its source to the user. And that costs attracts GST already

blackcap
13-09-2017, 12:55 PM
I see we are going to have to keep repeating it because the message is not getting through. The water is not free! It costs a heck of a lot to get it from its source to the user. And that costs attracts GST already

LOL I think JT thinks that the farmers irrigating water comes from the "council supply" :P

minimoke
13-09-2017, 01:05 PM
LOL I think JT thinks that the farmers irrigating water comes from the "council supply" :P
I dont think he is thinking at all - just regurgitating the mantra.

Snow Leopard
13-09-2017, 01:18 PM
If so PT 2.5 million litres =2500 cumetres x .02cents =$50

2500 * 0.02c = 50c (or $0.50)

Come on JT, lift you game here.

So what is it actually supposed to be
2cents per litre
or
2 one hundredths of a cent per cubic metre
or
maybe do you want to make another one up?

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 01:24 PM
PT what waterless planet are you on; its 2 c per thousand litres we are working on here.. This is NZ.

Snow Leopard
13-09-2017, 01:29 PM
PT what waterless planet are you on; its 2 c per thousand litres we are working on here.. This is NZ.

Well if it is 2c per 1,000 litres (or 1 cumec) then why did you not write that then?

Why did you first write 2c per litre

and then why did you write 0.02 cents per cumec?

You seem to think that you you can chuck out any old rubbish and have people blindly accept it?

And you think I am on a different planet?

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 02:00 PM
Ok i omitted cubic on one post but not the others; you haven't been following the thread but stalking me Oh tiger tiger:scared::D

jonu
13-09-2017, 02:10 PM
Ok i omitted cubic on one post but not the others; you haven't been following the thread but stalking me Oh tiger tiger:scared::D

Mess with the Tiger and you will quickly find out on which planet he/she resides. You better hope it's not yours :p

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 02:13 PM
Yes I'm all for supporting tigers they are on the verge of extinction; prob more in zoos now.

www.savetigersnow.org

minimoke
13-09-2017, 02:48 PM
Lots of great farmers and Irrigators; but when something is free , well you know what happens; its not valued or cared for; user pays will upskill with better more efficient, conserving ,operating with exciting new monitoring tech etct o support this e.g. drones.
So if you like the idea of user pays, how much do you think would be fair for you to pay for your water? $1, $10, $100 per year?

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 03:52 PM
I already am; but can't bothered looking for the invoice again atm.Very happy to.One estimate that our volume of water used dropped by 30% when water meters were installed.Have been through this mm.

blackcap
13-09-2017, 04:15 PM
I already am; but can't bothered looking for the invoice again atm.Very happy to.One estimate that our volume of water used dropped by 30% when water meters were installed.Have been through this mm.

How would you suppose farmers get charged for irrigation JT? On a voluntary basis? Some bureaucracy that comes around and monitors daily? Some other method?

minimoke
13-09-2017, 04:59 PM
I already am; but can't bothered looking for the invoice again atm.Very happy to.One estimate that our volume of water used dropped by 30% when water meters were installed.Have been through this mm.
Jeez this is frustrating. We have been over this. You are not paying for the water, you are paying for the infrastructure.

So let me rephrase - how much more are you prepared to pay?

minimoke
13-09-2017, 05:02 PM
Jt i thought the water tax was to fund river remdiation, not to conserve water.

So many mixed messages coming from the labour camp!

westerly
13-09-2017, 06:22 PM
Where have you got that detail from FD ? Do you have a link. I think many people would be very interested to see detail on this or any other policy from Labour.

Just go to their website it is all there. Interesting no one queries the royalty paid (resource rental) to extract oil,gas, gold ,coal, and gravel but water? Dairy farming is having major effects in Canterbury and there are large numbers of multiple corparate farms. I see no reason why they should not pay for the water used to make profits.

westerly

minimoke
13-09-2017, 06:42 PM
Just go to their website it is all there. Interesting no one queries the royalty paid (resource rental) to extract oil,gas, gold ,coal, and gravel but water? Thats because they are essentially finite resources whereas water, generally just falls form the sky in copious quantities


Dairy farming is having major effects in Canterbury and there are large numbers of multiple corparate farms. I see no reason why they should not pay for the water used to make profits.

westerly
The worst polluters of the Avon River are city folk with their tyre shreds and petrol and oil on roads, washing their car suds down the drains, along with paint and any other gunk; all the fertiliser thrown on the gardens and lawns; their insistence of having loads of trees so all the leaves fall into the storm water in Autumn. Even raw sewerage. Only fair city folk should pay the same as farming folk if anything has to be aid at all.

Joshuatree
13-09-2017, 10:20 PM
Jeez this is frustrating. We have been over this. You are not paying for the water, you are paying for the infrastructure.

So let me rephrase - how much more are you prepared to pay?

For me I'd Be happy to double the royalty no prob.

minimoke
14-09-2017, 06:09 AM
For me I'd Be happy to double the royalty no prob.
Good on you for being prepared to put your money where your mouth is. Your $1 contribution would go some way but not a long way

blackcap
14-09-2017, 06:48 AM
For me I'd Be happy to double the royalty no prob.

How do you propose that the tax on dairy irrigation is levied?

Joshuatree
14-09-2017, 08:57 AM
I would not have the slightest clue. Fartherist away area of expertise i could imagine. There are experts for that sort of thing to work out a royalty for the use of water. maybe that makes it easier too. For the "use" of water not for the water .:sleep:

fungus pudding
14-09-2017, 09:03 AM
I would not have the slightest clue. Fartherist away area of expertise i could imagine. There are experts for that sort of thing to work out a royalty for the use of water. maybe that makes it easier too. For the "use" of water not for the water .:sleep:

For us mere humans, what on earth is a fartherist?

blackcap
14-09-2017, 09:08 AM
I would not have the slightest clue. Fartherist away area of expertise i could imagine. There are experts for that sort of thing to work out a royalty for the use of water. maybe that makes it easier too. For the "use" of water not for the water .:sleep:

Yeah but how are you going to measure usage? I do not think Jacinda has even thought about this.

minimoke
14-09-2017, 09:28 AM
Yeah but how are you going to measure usage? I do not think Jacinda has even thought about this.for a start it should be water that hits the ground from the irrigator - because that is the stuff that will eventually flow into poluted river.

It cant include the water that leaves the pivot sprinkler as some will be lost to evapouration before hitting the ground.

blackcap
14-09-2017, 09:38 AM
for a start it should be water that hits the ground from the irrigator - because that is the stuff that will eventually flow into poluted river.

It cant include the water that leaves the pivot sprinkler as some will be lost to evapouration before hitting the ground.

And even then... how do you measure that? Will it be farmers volunteering this information or will irrigators have meters on them? Who will collect this metered data?

westerly
14-09-2017, 10:07 AM
And even then... how do you measure that? Will it be farmers volunteering this information or will irrigators have meters on them? Who will collect this metered data?

They have to measure their consumption now in Canterbury anyway. otherwise how do you check they are not exceeding their allocation?
Farmers are all honest of course but I am old enough to remember a sheep retention scheme where NZ s flock increased massively overnight.

westerly

xafalcon
14-09-2017, 10:28 AM
How do you propose that the tax on dairy irrigation is levied?

Easy

Individual region pollution remediation cost / litres irrigated in the region X litres irrigated on the individual farm = individual farm irrigation tax. Spread tax bill equally over a number of years eg 20 years. The tax is levied on the farm, not the owner

But should also apply to non-irrigated farms because they are also very polluting

In non-irrigated areas it should be ratio'ed on head count and animal type

And all industries should make a contribution as well, based on effluent BOD or COD, suspended solids, toxic trace metals

jonu
14-09-2017, 11:06 AM
Easy

Individual region pollution remediation cost / litres irrigated in the region X litres irrigated on the individual farm = individual farm irrigation tax. Spread tax bill equally over a number of years eg 20 years. The tax is levied on the farm, not the owner

But should also apply to non-irrigated farms because they are also very polluting

In non-irrigated areas it should be ratio'ed on head count and animal type

And all industries should make a contribution as well, based on effluent BOD or COD, suspended solids, toxic trace metals

That, however, is not a water tax. It is a livestock tax in the context of farmers.

minimoke
14-09-2017, 11:29 AM
[QUOTE=xafalcon;684092]Easy
In non-irrigated areas it should be ratio'ed on head count and animal type
/QUOTE]
It should then be on rainfall - because that is what flows over the ground, picking up pollutants on the way to the river.

Clearly this is all very tricky. And quite obviuosly Labour hasnt given it any thought despite their 9 years thumb twiddling in opposition.

Its no wonder jacinda has today announced no changes in tax till next elections.

(And all this is without maori input into the water tax)

xafalcon
14-09-2017, 01:39 PM
That, however, is not a water tax. It is a livestock tax in the context of farmers.

I should have been clearer in my post.

The water tax was a subset of what I wrote "Individual region pollution remediation cost / litres irrigated in the region X litres irrigated on the individual farm = individual farm irrigation tax. Spread tax bill equally over a number of years eg 20 years. The tax is levied on the farm, not the owner"

The rest of the post was my opinion that all farmers should pay for their pollution, regardless of whether they irrigate or not. And is a livestock tax as you correctly point out

blackcap
14-09-2017, 01:51 PM
The rest of the post was my opinion that all farmers should pay for their pollution, regardless of whether they irrigate or not. And is a livestock tax as you correctly point out

That would not be fair to the non-irrigators. The irrigators or those that cause the most problems will then increase their irrigating and game theory will purport that irrigation as a whole will increase. The opposite of what they (labour) want.

xafalcon
14-09-2017, 02:19 PM
That would not be fair to the non-irrigators. The irrigators or those that cause the most problems will then increase their irrigating and game theory will purport that irrigation as a whole will increase. The opposite of what they (labour) want.

Life isn't fair

But I disagree with your game theory. Increase stock head-count = increase of livestock tax. Increase irrigation water use = increase in water tax. Rates don't necessarily need to be the same. If irrigators cause most of the problem, weight in favour of irrigators paying most of the remediation cost

KISS theory. Don't over-think

I think what "they" want is actually what most NZer's want. Cleaner rivers and lakes that have been degraded over decades of insufficient effluent and run-off control from the farming sector.

Failure to address this problem runs the risk of endangering our biggest export earner - tourism

Townies already pay their way through the waste water treatment portion of local body rates

minimoke
14-09-2017, 02:38 PM
KISS theory. Don't over-think

Clearly labours stategy - though some thinking would be useful

Joshuatree
26-09-2017, 12:58 PM
Landowners selling water what a farce

"$1 a cubic metre I think personally undervalues what the water can produce. If you look at what each cubic metre "


"But in the absence of charges from central or local Government, a market for water has sprung up anyway. One consultancy, Hydro Traders, is helping landowners sell water from the Selwyn-Waimakiriri and Selwyn-Rakaia areas in amounts usually ranging from 50 million to 500 million litres a year (50,000- 500,000 cubic metres) for prices of roughly $50,000 to $500,000 (based on the ten most recent sales).
One particularly large trade in 2015 allowed the buyer to take more than 2 billion litres of water annually from the Hurunui River, with a daily limit of 15 million litres. Wellington City, by comparison, uses 30 billion litres of water a year for household and industrial purposes.
The sales are often happening in catchments where councils have belatedly realised they have given out more extraction rights than rivers can stand, meaning a landowner's prospects of getting a new permit, or increasing an existing one, are slim to non-existent. Most of the confirmed trading is happening in Canterbury, although Otago also has high numbers of water transfers between landowners (though not necessarily trading for money) and there are anecdotal reports of water sales from Marlborough (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/business/82282156/Opposition-to-water-sharing-plan-in-Marlborough).
The man facilitating much of the trading in Canterbury — Hydro Traders' managing director Anthony Davoren — believes water should be selling for more. "$1 a cubic metre I think personally undervalues what the water can produce. If you look at what each cubic metre of water can produce and the long-term average of various commodities, whether it's wheat or barley or potatoes or milk solids or red meat protein, that water is probably a little undervalued," says Davoren."
When the river runs dry: The true cost of NZ water (http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/91957274/When-the-river-runs-dry-The-true-cost-of-NZ-water)

Joshuatree
27-09-2017, 11:23 AM
No comments I'm amazed!.
If anyone is concerned about the water degradation in our rivers etc go to the movie doc "Seven Rivers Walking" in theatres now. About streams and rivers on the Canterbury plains being degraded and in some cases disappearing with the water take out.

with the water take!With walkers, rafters, anglers and farmers, this documentary journeys from the alpine to spring rivers of Canterbury, exploring above and below the surfaces in search of ways through a freshwater crisis.
"Who can deny that the city rivers of Christchurch and the braided rivers of the Canterbury Plains have been poisoned and depleted for the sake of agri-business? In one of the many personal anecdotes that drive this film, a fisherman recalls how the mighty Rakaia once pushed its way a mile out to sea. Aerial footage shows us the river today as it slinks into the sea, obliterated by the first breaker that crosses its path. In the polarised political environment of 2017, this film is a disarmingly peaceable one. It places the hope of change in a shared love of Canterbury’s rivers and riparian environments and a profound appreciation of their ecology."
With walkers, rafters, anglers and farmers, this documentary journeys from the alpine to spring rivers of Canterbury, exploring above and below the surfaces in search of ways through a freshwater crisis.
"Who can deny that the city rivers of Christchurch and the braided rivers of the Canterbury Plains have been poisoned and depleted for the sake of agri-business? In one of the many personal anecdotes that drive this film, a fisherman recalls how the mighty Rakaia once pushed its way a mile out to sea. Aerial footage shows us the river today as it slinks into the sea, obliterated by the first breaker that crosses its path. In the polarised political environment of 2017, this film is a disarmingly peaceable one. It places the hope of change in a shared love of Canterbury’s rivers and riparian environments and a profound appreciation of their ecology."With walkers, rafters, anglers and farmers, this documentary journeys from the alpine to spring rivers of Canterbury, exploring above and below the surfaces in search of ways through a freshwater crisis.
"Who can deny that the city rivers of Christchurch and the braided rivers of the Canterbury Plains have been poisoned and depleted for the sake of agri-business? In one of the many personal anecdotes that drive this film, a fisherman recalls how the mighty Rakaia once pushed its way a mile out to sea. Aerial footage shows us the river today as it slinks into the sea, obliterated by the first breaker that crosses its path. In the polarised political environment of 2017, this film is a disarmingly peaceable one. It places the hope of change in a shared love of Canterbury’s rivers and riparian environments and a profound appreciation of their ecology."

777
28-09-2017, 03:19 PM
Nobody wants to play with you JT.

Joshuatree
28-09-2017, 05:39 PM
Play?!. Its our environment going down the gurgler. More like facts you just don't want to face, thats not going to help being passive as the problem is only going to get bigger with another 250 300 thousand hectares planned to be irrigated and irrigators prepared to pay up to $1.50 a cubic metre.
What a rort!. Hoping the greens get in to sort it out.:t_up:

777
28-09-2017, 06:13 PM
Play?!. Its our environment going down the gurgler. More like facts you just don't want to face, thats not going to help being passive as the problem is only going to get bigger with another 250 300 thousand hectares planned to be irrigated and irrigators prepared to pay up to $1.50 a cubic metre.
What a rort!. Hoping the greens get in to sort it out.:t_up:

JT have a think how many cubic metres of water an average farm would use for irrigation during a summer. Now if they were paying $1 a cubic metre they would be broke after the first week. You need to investigate further what is meant by $1/ cu. mtr actually means.

craic
28-09-2017, 10:14 PM
The currently proposed scheme on the Waimakariri river is to take 140 cu. metres per second from two sites. I think that that works out at 12 million cubic metres per day for irrigation. Should be able to grow a few cows with that lot. Many years ago I wallowed in the North Canterbury waters at various sites when I worked for the North Canterbury Nasella Tussock board. I often shared mud holes with the cattle and never caught mad cow disease. When? - I was on the hill one day when the boss came up and told us that John F Kennedy had been shot.

minimoke
09-10-2017, 06:20 PM
If you haven't noticed it has been raining quite heavily the last few days, consequently the braided rivers are running higher than normal. Farmers will be smiling, good for pasture growth. Also good for the aquifiers which rely on river flows to maintain water levels. Water becomes valuable when summer finally arrives and the braided rivers approach their minimum flows and irrigation is restricted.
When the rivers are in flood irrigators do not want the water, it is too dirty for their equipment. If you can find a use for all that dirty water flowing out to sea I am sure you will make a fortune.

westerly

I've copied this from the general thread to try and keep a bit more on topic.

So in answer to the question about what you do with dirty water - its simple. You harvest it during peak flows for use in low flows. Just like this,:http://irrigationnz.co.nz/irrigation_scheme/rangitata-south/

And look even NIWA likes it: https://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/isu/instrument-systems-update-21-november-2015/harvesting-and-supplying-flood-water-to-irrigators-on-demand

Baa_Baa
09-10-2017, 07:55 PM
I've copied this for the general thread to try and keep a bit more on topic.

So in answer teo the question about what you do with dirty water - its simple. You harvest it during peak flows for use in low flows. Just like this,:http://irrigationnz.co.nz/irrigation_scheme/rangitata-south/

And look even NIWA likes it: https://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/isu/instrument-systems-update-21-november-2015/harvesting-and-supplying-flood-water-to-irrigators-on-demand

There are some politicians that just don't get it, or they game the system if they do, that there are things that nature provides that cannot be claimed by the State and taxed or sales endorsed for taxation purposes by the State, without repercussions. Sea Bed springs to mind, as do other bounties of mother nature, like water from the sky. Best not to go there after the Government is formed, it's a fast track to political oblivion, albeit a nice by-line for electioneering purposes.

Joshuatree
11-10-2017, 10:04 PM
So if landowners who were allocated/given/bought water rights its ok to SELL the water to irrigators even though "no one owns the water"?!. Whats all this nonsense about not being able to afford 1 or 2 cents a cubic metre, lol. If the going price is $1 to $1.50 i suggest say 6 % of that goes towards sorting out the polluted rivers etc in that area paid by the landowner selling the stuff. No brainer .

A lot of the Canterbury plains were formed by the eroding mountains. They are up to 200 metres o f gravel in places and unsuitable for dairy farming unless irrigated and fertilised regularly. But of course the nitrates ,urine etc are going to seep through all that gravel and into the acquifiers and rivers. General opinion is that intensification has reached its max but no some thousands more hectares are planned for to be irrigated and fertilised and farmed. Something needs to be done, we can't go on ignoring and abusing and polluting clean green NZ any longer. So who you gonna call?

minimoke
12-10-2017, 07:34 AM
So if landowners who were allocated/given/bought water rights its ok to SELL the water to irrigators even though "no one owns the water"?!. Whats all this nonsense about not being able to afford 1 or 2 cents a cubic metre, lol. If the going price is $1 to $1.50 i suggest say 6 % of that goes towards sorting out the polluted rivers etc in that area paid by the landowner selling the stuff. No brainer .
You are trying to solve a non-existent problem. Form teh article: “The water business is small” and “Davoren estimates the amount being traded accounts for just a few per cent of water in the tightest catchments”


You should really be much more concerned about the lack of elected governance on the issue. Cantabrians are the only people who have lost the right to vote for their regional council - yet the Council still insist on taxing us. "No taxation without representation" should be the issue to focus on.

Joshuatree
14-10-2017, 08:23 AM
Fair enough. But the water business will grow fast imo. water wars are happening around the globe, california being an example with all the skullduggery that goes with politics/scarcity/ money.The amount of extra intensification planned with dairy farming for one is going to create a huge problem with environmental pollution etc.
One to cents charge per cubic metre of water is a great start to managing and conserving, valuing our resources. Do you still have an issue with this and if so why?.

minimoke
14-10-2017, 08:58 AM
One to cents charge per cubic metre of water is a great start to managing and conserving, valuing our resources. Do you still have an issue with this and if so why?.Six off the cuff reasons.
1) The only people who should charge for something are the owners of that something.

2) You should not charge for what is given freely and in bountiful supply by mother nature. If you do you are on a slippery slope as you can then justify charging for the oxygen we breath or the cabon dioxide used in production or the sun used for growth or disease prevention

3) The charge has to be administratively efficient.

4) Charging for water doesn't prevent pollution of the waterways because water is not a pollutant.

5) When you start charging you are incentivising people to use their skulduggery skills.

6) Charging does not help conserve. It just means the rich get what they can afford and the poor miss out.

elZorro
16-10-2017, 07:03 AM
Six off the cuff reasons.
1) The only people who should charge for something are the owners of that something.

2) You should not charge for what is given freely and in bountiful supply by mother nature. If you do you are on a slippery slope as you can then justify charging for the oxygen we breath or the cabon dioxide used in production or the sun used for growth or disease prevention

3) The charge has to be administratively efficient.

4) Charging for water doesn't prevent pollution of the waterways because water is not a pollutant.

5) When you start charging you are incentivising people to use their skulduggery skills.

6) Charging does not help conserve. It just means the rich get what they can afford and the poor miss out.

MM, the real situation is a bit more complex, and you surely know that.

I would rephrase that reply of yours to:

(1) Because it would cost/impact me, or people I know, therefore I have to oppose it. I fully understand that I'm not being charged for water, I'm paying a pro-rata fee, based on my water use being well above normal.

(2) Nonsense, a dead cat argument that is often tried.

(3) Is there any easier way? It's efficient all right, too efficient.

(4) When someone spreads irrigation water on parched sunny landscapes with stony free-draining soils, it's very inefficient. Some evaporates, some soaks down through the soil, and a small portion, well under 50% of it, gets to the plants. A couple of things happen there that leads to pollution. Escaping water takes dissolved nutrients with it from the soil, and it ends up in waterways or the water table. The source of the water is generally a waterway, its reduced flow perhaps can't handle the flushing required in low rainfall times, and of course increased stocking rates lead to more point source pollution from excrement when its used for farming, some of which ends up in waterways.

(5) Bypassing the system wouldn't be undetectable. Plenty of monitoring gear available.

(6) We live on a limited planet, and we have to start placing limits on human consumption and degradation. There are other ways of making a dollar in NZ, that use far less resources, and in a more efficient way.

minimoke
16-10-2017, 08:08 AM
MM, the real situation is a bit more complex, and you surely know that.


So complex Labour had very little detail to go with their announced policy. Seems to me that they had just found a cause to attach themselves to. Even better one that sticks it to those wealthy farmers
and capitalist water bottlers.

Joshuatree
19-10-2017, 11:43 AM
Christchurch considers water charge (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341900/christchurch-considers-water-charge) No brainer

minimoke
19-10-2017, 12:39 PM
Christchurch considers water charge (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341900/christchurch-considers-water-charge) No brainer
Lets look at the (non) issues. Christchurch "use twice as much water as Aucklanders". No surprise there as Christchurch gets half as much rainfall as Auckland (600mm vs 1200mm) so at a residential level has a greater need.

But how much water is there and where does it go: As a broad benchmark the city used 50 million m3 of groundwater a year: 57% goes to residential use, 21% for commercial and industrial uses, 17% is unaccounted for, and 5% for public use. Outside of this private irrigators around the city took 36 million m3 and industries 14 million m3.

So you have a total of 100m m3 and resident use 28.5%

Average daily use is around 275,000 m3 a day. Max use over summer gets to about 400,000 m3 a day. Aquifers recharge around 780,000 m3 a day - 95% of Christchurch aquifers are fed from the Waimak

Anyone smell a revenue gathering exercise?

Zaphod
19-10-2017, 03:31 PM
Christchurch considers water charge (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341900/christchurch-considers-water-charge) No brainer

"They [the government] said they can't charge the farmers for it no matter how much they use because we can't decide who owns it, so how can the council charge me for it? I don't mind them charging me to get it to my door, but they shouldn't be able to charge me for supply of it."

Seems that some of the public still don't understand the difference between charging for water and charging for distribution.

Some councils are also promoting use-based distribution charges as a way to lower rates for some ratepayers. I suspect just like credit card fees, this will not result in a lowering of the rate take but will instead be treated as an additional source of revenue.

minimoke
19-10-2017, 03:43 PM
Some councils are also promoting use-based distribution charges as a way to lower rates for some ratepayers. I suspect just like credit card fees, this will not result in a lowering of the rate take but will instead be treated as an additional source of revenue.
The problem with paying for distribution is that there is a couple of elements. Cost of infrastructure, R&M and depreciation. Given the number of years the meters have been in the ground (20?) probably little cost here.

Then there is the cost of pumping water on a daily basis. Arguably this could be done on a pro rata basis house by house. Except the majority of the costs are going to be in a pipe network up to that last 20 meters before it gets to the house. So everyone should pay equally for that. You then end up paying from the gate to the house - a smidge of total costs. Now add on meter reader and account processing costs (which only serves to give people non-productive jobs at ratepayer expense) and it seems costs will outweigh any made up benefits.

minimoke
20-10-2017, 07:10 AM
I think we can close this thread down. It appears that taxing water is now no longer a Labour Policy in the new Labour / NZ First coalition. Winston was dead against it. So best Labour does what Wiston wants.

Joshuatree
20-10-2017, 08:07 AM
The problem is getting worse though and we need solutions. Councils on one hand are supporting large acreage intensification increases (canterbury) one moment and then on the other the reduction of nitrates whilst an increasing number of water supplies there are above safety limits for town supply even!!?.
Note the recent blue baby effects where babies blood can't carry enough oxygen because of the nitrates(cow urine) absorbed through the tap water.

It seems its off the table for now(water tax) whereas water charges are spreading to more urban centres and water wars will only increase with charges increasing(currently$1-$1.50 a cubic metre) where greedy landowners with water rights are making a killing. A water charge for these people and other heavy users and wasters is still the way to go. Reductions in vol of water used average 30% as soon as people have to pay . Bottlers will be the first and i hope the rest follow whether its for the water or the use of it. Its a global problem , we can learn from the mistakes of others, california for example. meanwhile i look forward to the salvation of our water quality and how its going to be paid for, the polluters are still in the crosshairs and deservedly so.

craic
20-10-2017, 08:44 AM
Collect rainwater in a tank. Drink it, wash in it, flush the toilet with it. And best of all, don't pay water rates. It works for this and thousands of other families and health problems are figments of other peoples imagination. Rainwater also makes the finest spirits and beers.

Joshuatree
20-10-2017, 09:00 AM
Hear hear i remember a while back one could buy simple diversionschutes where the leaves etc went one way and the water into the barrel/tanks simple but effective. You've got to stick around AT least another 3 years craic to see what this new govt achieves; i think it will be great things for our communities. sure there will always be some people can't be helped but putting a brush across the lot in some sort of default position is defeatist imo. I know you've experienced the unsavoury aspects of human nature in your profession but thankfully these are in a minority and there are great stories of redemption that come out of there too.

minimoke
20-10-2017, 09:17 AM
The problem is getting worse though and we need solutions. .
Obviously there is no problem. If there was and Labour was as principled as people say they are then they would be continuing with this policy as they saw it as a solution. They would also ensure the Greens (as the best advocates for water) would have a seat in Cabinet. Instead their policies will be watered down to some outside cabinet role.

Clearly nothing to see here - time to move on

Joshuatree
20-10-2017, 10:25 AM
"Obviously there is no problem" Yes and you're wearing no clothes, and the tides a way off.:D:eek2: Greens are doing their apprenticeship and will have influence and reason and facts which labour won't overlook like previous govt.

minimoke
20-10-2017, 10:40 AM
.:D:eek2: Greens are doing their apprenticeship and will have influence and reason and facts which labour won't overlook like previous govt.
The Greens should already have done their apprenticeship - did they learn nothing in 9 years in opposition? Obviously still have their nappies and training wheels on - couldn't even get a single seat at the cabinet table despite having only one seat less to off a Coalition than NZ First.

Heres something you can take as a given. The Greens will achieve absolutely nothing sitting on the cross benches. Any environmental gains will be claimed by Labour and NZ First. ( I suggest you get a recording of Winstons speech from last night. Listen carefully to how many times he mentioned working closely with the Greens. Then come back and tell me what they are really likely to acheive)

Joshuatree
20-10-2017, 10:58 AM
Yes well we will revisit this thread at some point and just see how good your "visions "turn out to be.
Meanwhile go and catch a trout and reflect on how lucky you are to still be able to do this .Thats what being out in nature is all about, reflecting and accepting oneself as counting in the great scheme of things and leaving ones environment better than one found it(an increasingly impossible goal it seems).

minimoke
20-10-2017, 11:27 AM
Meanwhile go and catch a trout and reflect on how lucky you are to still be able to do this .Thats what being out in nature is all about, reflecting and accepting oneself as counting in the great scheme of things and leaving ones environment better than one found it(an increasingly impossible goal it seems).
I would enjoy my fishing if it wasn't for our damn tourism industry that let some American in with Didymo on his waders. That is a far bigger killer of ecosystems in our rivers than cows - but you wont hear the Greens bang on about that!

"Didymo smothers streambeds and affects the habitat ofinsects such as mayflies and caddisflies that fish rely on for food. Large quantities ofDidymo can reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen in river water, which also impactsnegativily on fish and invertebrates."

Joshuatree
13-11-2017, 09:10 AM
Its a global problem and its right here in NZ building up undeground.Federated farmers have about as much credibility in dealing with water pollution as national.
Download Document 54.06KB (https://hotcopper.com.au/documentembed?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvSDYL4wq0w BHwv%2BV0%2B7FiGug%3D)