Labour to Tax Water

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westerly

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...ngitata-south/

And look even NIWA likes it: https://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/...tors-on-demand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minimoke

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...ngitata-south/

And look even NIWA likes it: https://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/...tors-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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joshuatree

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.

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?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joshuatree

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minimoke

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elZorro

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.

Christchurch considers water charge No brainer