Waging war over water: battle approaches boiling point
Minister Bill English and remains under consideration.)
Smith’s argument was that bottled mineral water exports last year totalled nine million litres of New Zealand’s annual water resource of 500 trillion litres — a tiny percentage. Others have argued that in comparison, the irrigation take is much larger and it’s better to focus on that.
However, freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, from Massey University, says the problem with that analysis is that it assumes water not being used is otherwise being wasted.
“But it’s not. Water is doing stuff — it’s running rivers, keeping fish alive, powering dams. The rivers do need that water. Compare it — you could take a litre of blood out of your body a day and for a while it would be okay. But eventually it would have an effect.”
It also assumed all water was equal, he said.
“But only a tiny proportion is good enough to bottle. And as cases like the Havelock contamination prove, that amount is getting smaller.”
Joy pointed to UN research that showed by 2030 the world will have only 60 per cent of the water it needs as evidence water is an increasingly valuable commodity.
“Every other country would be saying, these idiots are giving their water away.”
Frustrated with the Government’s efforts — and the perceived failures of the RMA — a group of water activists including Joy, Branje and some iwi have turned their attention to forming better solutions.
At the forefront is an idea first suggested by Maori, and since built on by Dame Anne Salmond, distinguished professor at Auckland University who is working on water quality issues.
She believes the Government has upheld only one part of the common law on water — that it can’t be owned — when in fact there is a second part that says one person’s use of water must not disadvantage another.
Salmond believes that rather than being owned by no one, water is owned by all, and as such should be put in trust, and the trust upheld by a Waterways Commission to ensure everyone’s rights — including iwi rights — are looked after.
A commission should be able to charge royalties to fund restoration projects, she said.
“At the moment people seem to be saying proprietary rights are the way to go, but I’m saying there is another way. At the moment there is a lot of head-banging, finger-pointing, blameshifting, a lot of unpleasant rhetoric. There needs to be something creative instead, to be explored by all parties.”
While popular with water activists, the idea has received limited political support.
Labour’s water spokesman, David Parker, agreed large commercial users should be charged but wasn’t sure a commission was necessary.
Greens spokeswoman Delahunty said she wasn’t sure water should be removed from the RMA, but agreed on the introduction of pricing.
New Zealand First has stated it would support fees for exporters.
Nick Smith did not comment on the idea.
Federated Farmers water and environment spokesman Chris Allen said charging was not a road it wanted to go down.
“All you’d be doing is putting a huge tax on every New Zealander.”
However Allen did say there was a difference between farmers and bottlers — in that farmers “added value” to water they used by putting resources back into the community.
New Zealand Beverage Council president Olly Munro argued it would be wrong to charge for the use of water for bottling while allowing other resource holders to continue to extract water without charge.
However, he said the council did not support the bulk extraction of water as that would “rob” the country of the additional employment and tax provided by locally packed products. Munro said he hoped any conversation would recognise bottlers’ contribution to the economy.
“The bottled water industry has been one of the few industries to boost employment in regional and remote areas where it is a vital source of economic security.”
At Poroti, hapu have now been told that if they want to share in the water, their only avenue is the RMA, which allows for a variety of joint management agreements.
What that means in practice is going cap-in-hand to the consent holders and asking to share in some of the allocation. A meeting with at least one user, the Whangarei District Council, has been agreed.
However the hapu lack faith in the RMA, and for good reason. A 2016 report for the Waitangi Tribunal found Poroti provided “an illuminating case study” of the failed promise of the RMA for a kaitikati community.
“That is because of the gulf between the Maori association with and mana over the springs, on the one hand, and what little the RMA has delivered, on the other.”
Ruka says despite that, the hapu will persist. They are also seeking changes to Zodiac’s consent so the spring flow rate must stay above a certain level — to ensure that if they do eventually take water, it will not run dry again.
The main issue for the hapu is that it all takes time. Even the Waterways Commission, which they think is a good idea, is too far away. Their dream is an eel nursery and some aquaculture in the Waipao that allows them to make money for the people, but it is currently impossible.
“We could still be talking about this in 10 years. It drains you. It’s so draining on our people,” Ruka said. “It’s killing us.”