Water charges spark no-mow protest
For six weeks Phil Yarrall’s normally pristine-looking grass berm has been getting longer and longer.
The 71-year-old stopped mowing his verge last month when the Christchurch City Council started charging residents for using excess water.
He is staging a one-man protest against the charge, which he believes is discriminatory, arbitrary in its application and nothing more than a creeping tax. Yarrall is encouraging others in the city to join his protest and let their verges grow wild – at least until they become a fire risk.
Cashmere man John Scott is also not happy about the charge and in protest has stopped caring for a council reserve that borders his property.
The new charge, which was introduced by the council in October, is designed to reduce extreme demand on the network, particularly over summer. The first bills are expected to be sent out in January.
People will be charged a fixed rate of $1.35 for every 1000 litres they use over the 700 litre limit, which is the equivalent of 100 toilet flushes a day. Bills will not be sent out for $25 or less, so people will have to use more than 900 litres each day over 90 days to receive a bill. Once a bill goes above $25, the person will be charged for all usage above 700 litres.
About 25,295 homes are exempt from the water charge because they share a water meter with their neighbours.
Yarrall is classed as a high water user, and last year, according to the council’s water reporter, his usage peaked at 1313 litres a day on average across 48 days in October and November. That equates to a bill of almost $40.
He has a large vegetable garden at his Linwood property as well as a hothouse, more than two dozen fruit and berry trees, native seedlings, herbs and other plants in pots. ‘‘We give any over-supply we have to the local community for free.’’
Yarrall, who was also refusing to pay any water bill he received, admitted his berm looks ‘‘pretty shabby’’, but would continue to let it grow, unless it got too high and dry and became a fire hazard in the summer.
There was no legal requirement for homeowners to mow berms outside their properties, council transport operations manager Stephen Wright said. The council would mow the berm a few times a year. If it became a fire risk then the council would do it more often.
Across the city in Cashmere, Scott is also seething at the charge. He wanted to install large water tanks under his balcony when he built his home in 1996, but the council rejected the idea. It insisted the water had to go into the stormwater system, Scott said. ‘‘The lack of foresight of the council now means I have to pay.’’
He was not able to put tanks in now because the space no longer existed. ‘‘I have to water my large garden from town supply and I’m being told I have to pay for it over and above my rates.’’
Scott has created an extensive garden on his 2600m3 property. He had also cared for a council walking track/reserve, which bordered his property, but had stopped that now.
According to the council, at a peak last year, Scott clocked up 3022 litres of water on average a day across 225 days. That would amount to a $700 bill.
Scott said he would pay any excess charge if he had to, but was not happy about it.
Council Three Waters and Waste head Helen Beaumont said earlier this month the charge was not about penalising people – it was about getting people thinking about the way they used water. She said it was fair to have a property owner, who regularly used significantly more water than the average household, to contribute towards the cost of supplying that extra water.