New Zealand's water is about to be sold

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Mike_E_from_NZ, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. Mike_E_from_NZ

    Mike_E_from_NZ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is scary stuff. What the government of NZ is now saying is that you don't own the water that falls on your roof. I believe that Australia went through this a short time ago. Coincidence? I don't think so. The multi nationals failed in Bolivia. And they learnt in Bolivia. They left to many ends not tied up. And they learnt enough that they won't fail in Australia and New Zealand. Permaculture principle #9 - use small and slow solutions. I'd call it the salami principle. Tying up loose ends first.

    If the govt wanted to fix the problem that they are spouting about, they would move to restrict irrigation schemes - not control every drop of water in the country.

    I only hope that swales and other small measure water conservation schemes will fall under the radar - how can you measure water use on those?


    Govt to control water supply
    11 April 2006

    By COLIN ESPINER

    The Government is poised to seize control of New Zealand's water supply amid concerns the resource is being drained too quickly.

    Big water users could be asked to pay more in return for greater certainty of supply under new plans being drawn up for administering the dwindling resource.

    "The days of taking the unlimited use of water for granted are over," Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton warned yesterday.

    "We need to ensure our freshwater is used efficiently and that it is protected from contamination from bugs, sediment, nutrients, stormwater and subdivision run-off."

    Anderton signalled it was the Government's intention to take overall control of freshwater resources and develop a national plan for the allocation of water rights by next year.

    The plan has been cautiously welcomed by user groups, but the National Party has branded it "wordy waffle", saying it is too little, too late.

    Under the plan, all users of freshwater – including irrigators, hydro-electricity companies and city and town water supplies – will have their use metered, but will not be charged for their use.

    They will, however, be charged on a cost-recovery basis for water management by regional councils.

    The Government is also floating the concept of tradeable water rights, which could see those holding a greater allocation than they need able to sell their rights to the highest bidder.

    The Government denies this amounts to privatisation of water, saying it will remain a public resource.

    At present, local councils control water rights, and allocation rules differ around the country.

    Anderton said yesterday that councils would continue to be the primary managers of freshwater under the Resource Management Act.


    But the national scale of some problems and feedback from the public indicated a need for "a more clearly expressed role for central government involvement" in some water-management issues.

    "The Sustainable Water Programme of Action will develop, for the first time, a strategic and nationally consistent approach to managing our valuable freshwater resources," Anderton said.

    "Central government will take a greater role in freshwater management, including setting national priorities and direction, while working closely with all parties with a significant interest."

    Anderton named Canterbury, Rotorua and Taupo as regions where there were significant water issues that needed to be addressed.

    An increasing demand for water and drier conditions along the eastern areas of New Zealand were placing the system under stress.

    The Government plans to establish a "leadership group" made up of affected parties within three months to direct the strategy. It will report by March next year.

    Environment Canterbury chairman Sir Kerry Burke said he welcomed the Government's plan, particularly the principle that water would continue to be managed as a public resource.

    Burke said water and its future management was a key issue for Canterbury.

    "It is good to see that the Government is looking at alternatives to first in, first served as a way of allocating resource consents. First in, first served does not always ensure the optimum sustainable use of the resource," he said.

    Fish and Game New Zealand said it was pleased the plan recognised that New Zealand's freshwater resource was both finite and threatened.

    "(It is) a crucial step towards reversing destructive trends, but action is needed now," director Bryce Johnson said.

    The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development said the "first-come, first-served gold-rush approach" to allocating water could not cope with increasing demand.

    Federated Farmers said it was pleased to see an end to the "arbitrary" awarding of water rights.

    National said the water strategy had "too little action and too much waffle".
     
  2. ho-hum

    ho-hum New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mike,

    Good luck to NZ. I sincerely hope you can get this right as Australia is in a real mess.

    I left the Murray River about 25 years ago and have re-visited about every 4 years. Every time I have returned 'new' areas are opened up and planted to wine grapes. When is someone going to declare this plant a weed?

    Twenty-five years ago it was well recognised then that the Murray had salinisation issues, flow issues etc and yet this process has run on unabated. I am aware that much of the water has come from re-allocations from other areas. Areas that are near beyond redemption. We have stuffed up one region so let's move up the river and start again.

    The whole Murray Darling basin is a near ecological disaster I sincerely hope your regulators are more far-sighted than ours have been in the past.

    Cheers
     
  3. Mike_E_from_NZ

    Mike_E_from_NZ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They won't be. Doesn't matter what the individuals think, if water rights are to be 'priced' then the outcoem is assured.

    Water should be controlled locally (one of the reasons for this is because "there are different rules around the country" - go figure, there are different conditions around the country). And the more locally the better. Our government is in debt up to their eyeballs and I would imagine this is payback time.

    I just hope they never find the technology to measure ground water infiltration. That way we can at least use swales and soil improvement to increase water retention invisibly.

    Mike
     
  4. heuristics

    heuristics Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    water

    In the same vein as this – the announced sale of the Snowy River hydro scheme.
    I am not sure of all the implications and ramifications. But I know I dont like it.
    I saw a bit on an ABC program – it was the usual depiction of farmers having a whinge and didn't really get to the meat of the why – and who will benefit/profit.

    I smelt a large rodent when I picked up that Macquarie Bank was behind the deal. Our former NSW Premier is now a luminary with Mac Bank.... wheels within wheels.

    Why does a piece of national infrastructure have to be sold???? We the people have already invested in it hugely over the decades -it is where thousands of “New Australians” (those fleeing WW2 devastated Europe) came to Oz and got a job on the Snowy scheme, and found that as a way to rebuild their lives).

    Another water rights mess is cotton farm Cubby Station which has been able to take an enormous amount of water out of the Darling-Murray, to the real disadvantage of downstream users in Qld, NSW, & SA!!!!!! (a whole continent, in fact).

    One thing that the buggers behind all these things have going for them is that each country and each region can be picked off – salami style – as you say, Mike.

    Generally speaking NZ farmers are not really interested in the precedent set in Oz – so they aren't ready when they find that they are “next”. Not singling out NZ farmers – we are all pretty much like that – complacent until it affects us directly – an extension of the NIMBY syndrome.
     
  5. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "We need to ensure our freshwater is used efficiently and that it is protected from contamination from bugs, sediment, nutrients, stormwater and subdivision run-off."

    They haven’t done it so far, have they? What makes anyone think they’re going to start?

    “Under the plan, all users of freshwater … will have their use metered, but will not be charged for their use.”

    If NZ believes that, they’ll believe anything.

    “They will, however, be charged on a cost-recovery basis for water management by regional councils.”

    Nope again. The big businesses will pay off your politicians, the little businesses and individuals will pay through the nose.

    “The Government denies this amounts to privatisation of water, saying it will remain a public resource.”

    You be good little citizens & do as you're told, or they will turn off your water. If they want your land, they can find or make an infraction, turn off your water, and force you out.

    Politicians have NO foresight. NONE WHATSOEVER! This isn't a plan of looking ahead to protect Oz & NZ, no matter what you think.

    If you're feeling paranoid, you're right: they ARE watching you, and they ARE out to get you.

    Sue
     
  6. spritegal

    spritegal Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We should have had our water monitored/metered and "user pays" 30 odd years ago.

    And then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Oh and the Great Artesian Basin would still be exactly that...."Great".

    This goes for all "developed" nations with "acceptable" utility infrastructure.

    No point whingeing about it now......its here to stay. I'm just surprised its taken NZ this long....
     
  7. Ichsani

    Ichsani Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi,

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mike, but there is substantial tech on measuring soil infiltration :? but it is good thing :D , what is protecting Aust from the regulation of water YOU slow as groundwater (which is what swales do) at the moment, is the fact that our soil classification method is NOT grouped along 'characteristic infiltration' lines........so no easy new maps (that HAVE been developed in the US) to judge what the gross infiltration characteristic is........so as yet no easy way to collate such info and regulate the "improved pasture/swale/keyline/bio-dynamic/Natural Sequence" commonality of slowing run-off.........in short restoring 'natural hydrology' in a land-use system.........there is already a 10% dams policy in NSW where a farm may only store 10% of its runoff on farm. Any more is frowned upon as 'stealing' (as if one owns water in the first place! Sharing is caring......).......so the key here is.....don't tell 'them' how much water gets slowed and stored in the ground by your practice......have faith that you're doing the land justice, and promoting its growth......true grass roots :lol: .............

    ...tis also too inconvienient for AUST farmers/(more multi-national farm corps. rather than Joe Farmer) to aknowledge groundwater too much..you should see a deep drainage map below a cotton growing region (gulp).......so probably won't happen soon......what is regulated now is nearly all surface water, groundwater (extraction only here), sewerage treatment plants....still many things to be looked at...

    ..oh by the way.....Cubbie Station is in QLD, and they have a different state system for water regulation......apparently water on its floodplain is not considered water in the 'channel' so therefor is can be pumped WITHOUT a license.......despite the fact that roughly 80% of water on a floodplain will drain back into the channel if left alone. That situation stinks of dirty politics. Oh, and is also owned by just one man.............not a corporation.....

    ......tis a matter between NSW and QLD, and its not being dealt with.


    Anyway, happy to add to the water goss 8)

    Cheerio
    Ichsani
     
  8. spritegal

    spritegal Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well said Ichi

    I often wonder these days if the novel "Dune" is not that far off the future truth....I can just see bridal prices, commodoties and real estate being negotiated in water tokens, not money or oil.....

    sprite :)
     
  9. Bootstrapper

    Bootstrapper Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tasmania's looking better all the time. Reliable rainfall, low population density. :)
     

Share This Page

-->