Keep city council out of water-bottling

At first glance the proposal for local authorities to involve themselves in the water-bottling fest seems plausible (Letters, Jan 6), but it is a route that might be fraught with dangers, not least being that which sees a change of locally elected hands that results in a neoliberalist local authority that will flog off the family silver at the first available opportunity. It’s happened before.

Rest assured that those whose snouts are always in a trough of some description will be rooting to see this one nudged into a similar gutter. The fortunes of any such enterprise will be prey to the latest political fashion, much like British Rail, and the interests of the domestic consumer will play second fiddle to the lead violin of shareholders’ dividends. Since the issue of water is of national importance, would it not be better to argue for a higher, overarching body that would put the citizenry’s interests in the matter above all others? John D Mahony

Mt Pleasant

Keep profits in South Island

Vicki Buck has her finger on the key to our pure water exports. It is a provincial and South Island asset, not Government whom, given the chance of setting a royalty on water, would have it end up in Wellington for the North Islands use. The water comes from our aquifers in the South Island, no different should oil be discovered and extracted.

A 50-cent royalty (times 1.5 billion litres) on the amount expected from one well at Belfast would reap $750,000,000 (after tax). A welcome dividend that could be used to upgrade motorways, rail, etc in the provinces, plus smartly tidy up our incompetently structured EQC, sending them back to Wellington and allow the provinces to get on with their job. In fact, the South Island and Stewart Island would be doing themselves justice by having provincial government, or home rule. If Scotland can, why can‘t we. Robert Patterson

Banks Peninsula RD2

Use the water here

It is heartening to read Vicki Buck is perusing the water laws. However, I suggest a different focus.

The Central Plains Water Scheme (500km of water races designed for dairy irrigation) has cost billions of dollars and had an impact on the environment and ecology between our two large rivers.

Joe Bloggs, meanwhile, pays more for dairy products than do people in Britain and Australia.

So, if we have water to spare in Canterbury, let’s not send it away. How about piping that too, to where it is needed most – into the Christchurch supply (to alleviate threats of rationing and rate increases) or the treatment ponds at Kaiapoi where ducks die yearly from avian botulism due to low-flow and warming? Maybe even to the algaeinfected swimming holes?

Many people feel that instead of a levy on plastic-bottled water, which they’d likely benefit little from, they’d rather have healthy waterways for future generations. June Peka

St Albans

Govt should fix this

As Graham Johnson makes plain, once the city had abundant freeflowing artesian wells, whereas now such high-quality water has, generally speaking, to be pumped to obtain sufficient supply (Letters, Jan 12).

What this means is that the cost of providing potable water is borne unequally, with the citizens of Christchurch in effect subsidising those who would wish to export relatively inexpensive water for profit. With due respect, it would seem, therefore, that the idiots Mr Johnson refers to are none other than the voting public, ie ourselves. Hopefully, the present (new) Government will correct the anomaly by recognising that the concept of water belonging to noone amounts to shallow thinking and hence is no longer credible, if ever it was. John Hoare

Cashmere