City water charges put back on agenda

The Christchurch City Council will once again consider charging residents for the water they use.

Staff are working on a report on ways the city’s water can be priced, which will likely include a volumetric charge. The issue will be included in next year’s Long Term Plan (LTP) process.

Water currently comes under a general rates bill, meaning water costs are tied to a property’s value. A volumetric rate would charge for the amount of water used, encouraging people to use less.

Many councils around the country use volumetric charging. Prices range from 44c per 1000 litres in most of the Selwyn district, to $1.96 per 1000L in Nelson.

Christchurch uses about

129 million litres of water per day, which nearly doubles over the summer months, primarily because of irrigation for gardening.

Usage per person is about double that of Auckland, which charges about $1.40 per 1000L.

The water-charging review came up in a council subcommittee discussion this week about promoting the use of rainwater tanks.

The last time the prospect of a water charge came up was 2015, during the previous LTP review. The idea was dropped.

‘‘There is a piece of work going on for the LTP looking at the review of water pricing,’’ said John Mackie, head of three waters and waste, when asked if it was back on the agenda.

Aquifers across Canterbury reached unusually low levels last year, after a prolonged dry spell.

Demand for water in Christchurch is expected to rise as the population grows. The climate of eastern Canterbury is expected to become more dry in the coming decades, adding further pressure.

Councillors at the meeting said there was a clear need to conserve more water, and changing the pricing method could achieve that.

‘‘My position isn’t necessarily that we charge for water, but we’ll need to come up with a position that makes the people of Christchurch respect what’s in our taps a lot more than what we currently do,’’ councillor Aaron Keown said.

‘‘We [currently] charge based on the price of your property, so a little old lady in Fendalton is paying five times more for her water than a flat of young fellas in Linwood. There’s no reason for her to save her rainwater

. . . or the guys to save theirs.’’

He said a volumetric charge would have little effect on the average ratepayer.

‘‘It would only be cents. But it’s the fact that mentally you’re thinking ‘I’m saving money’ . . . you change behaviours.’’

Christchurch Beautifying Association president Ron Andrew said the group ‘‘would strenuously oppose’’ a volumetric water fee in the city. ‘‘It’s absolute nonsense to say water’s not available,’’ he said.

‘‘. . . If we’re going to be honest to ourselves when we talk about the Garden City, then we have to provide two things – maintenance and, of course, water.’’

Andrew said gardeners using excessive water every day was a ‘‘myth’’.

Others used ‘‘far more water than they have to’’ washing cars, houses and flushing toilets. He believed a volumetric fee system would negatively affect those who needed more water. ‘‘People will stop using water and so the cost will go on fewer people. I would expect it [the cost] would then go up.’’

Damian Curtain, co-owner of Addington’s Espresso Carwash Franchise, was not concerned as his business was environmentally friendly and not a large water user. Cars were washed with a fine spray so each clean used about 30 litres of water, he said.

Most Christchurch houses already have water meters installed.

Saving water would have economic and environmental benefits. Extracting the groundwater and handling wastewater came at a cost.

Earlier this year, an OECD report into New Zealand’s environmental performance recommended councils adopt volumetric charging for water.

It said water consumption per household in Auckland had fallen 30 per cent since a volumetric charge was introduced in the late 1990s.

There were similar reductions in Nelson and Tauranga, where volumetric charging had been introduced.

It is illegal for councils to profit from water, so a volumetric rate would be based on the cost of supplying water.

Council city services manager David Adamson said yesterday staff were ‘‘looking at the existing infrastructure and what is feasible around volumetric charging’’.

Whether it was included in the LTP was a council decision.

A council staff report into subsidising rainwater tanks found there would be little benefit, primarily because there was no financial incentive to conserve water.

What is the fair way to charge for water? Homeowners currently pay for water in their rates, which is a set fee determined by the value of a property. They could sip a cup of water or they could waste gallons of it and the cost would be the same. Surely it is fairer to charge for the amount used.

In that vein, we welcome reports that the Christchurch City Council is considering water charges, even though it backed away from them in 2015. Besides fairness, there is the crucial issue of water conservation. You are more likely to save it if they are going to put a charge on it.

Council staff have said that work on water charging is being readied for consideration in the 2018 long-term plan process. Get used to hearing the word ‘‘volumetric’’. This defines that we may start to pay for our home water use according to volumes that pour out of the hose or the tap.

When water charging was floated in 2015, The Press reported that in Auckland, where homeowners are billed for water use, 175 litres of water per person per day was used. In Christchurch it was more than double – at 366 litres.

Excessive use by gardeners during dry Canterbury summers is said to be the chief reason our water usage is astronomical by comparison.

Since volumetric charging was introduced in Auckland in the 1990s, water consumption per household has fallen by 30 per cent, according to the OECD. Water charges have also been introduced in Selwyn, Nelson and Tauranga.

Costs vary dramatically across New Zealand. Users in Selwyn pay about 44 cents per 1000 litres compared with Nelson’s $1.96 for the same amount of water.

The 2015 report added that if current levels of usage went unchecked, Christchurch could have major water supply problems by 2051 as the aquifers we depend on for our high-quality water are not an infinite resource. Encouraging better use of water was the key in 2015 and it still is, according to the council.

Another solution proposed then, by councillor Raf Manji, was a water quota. There would be a charge for water use that exceeded the quota, and the ability to sell water back if it was not used. But, after raising the issue in 2015, Mayor Lianne Dalziel dropped it again.

Could water charges be considered a hard sell in the Garden City? Would we see a gardeners’ revolt, with pitchforks and spades assembled on the council steps?

For water charging to work, it has to be seen as reasonable, equitable and clearly explained. It would have to be seen to be encouraging water conservation in Christchurch rather than providing a revenue stream for the council.

Councillors have promised that volumetric charges for water would barely be noticed by most ratepayers. A small charge makes the act symbolic as much as economic. It means that we have to stop and think if we want to extend our showers or wash the car or water the garden in the middle of the day.

It is about encouraging sensible use of an increasingly rare and valuable resource.