Christchurch high user water charges 1 July 2022

Forums › Off topic › Christchurch high user water charges 1 July 2022

1 | 2 | 3

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3051069 17-Mar-2023 07:49

Wheelbarrow01:

A small number of shared meters? Over 25,000 is not a small number is it?

They should have kept their mouths shut about the AirBnB thing - that has not helped garner them any sympathy at all. One would think that if they are paying tax on their AirBnB earnings, then the excess water usage becomes a tax deduction, along with a portion of their entire rates bill, insurance, power etc. End of discussion.

If anything, they've now brought their accommodation business to the attention of council (and/or IRD), and I am sure they will be looking into it now. Under Christchurch City Council bylaws, they need a resource consent if 6 or less guests occupy the entire property unhosted (ie if the owners vacate while guests are staying) - no matter how few nights per year they might rent it out for. If it's more than 60 nights/year or over 6 people then it's a discretionary activity subject to full audit of impact to neighbours, parking etc.

I would have thought that my house would be a reasonably high water consumer as I love my long showers and I empty/refill our spa pool once every few months. But the CCC website shows we average about 320-370 litres per day which is considered low use. Very surprised. We are on a standalone property so not likely our meter has been mixed up with the neighbours (who both show low use anyway). I must say I do not garden or even water my lawn so that must explain it. This also means I emit fewer carbons through less frequent lawn mowing. Doing my bit for the environment 😎

I don't disagree with you about it being a revenue exercise. As others have said, we have natural aquifers directly under the city so the costs for administering catchments, treating and distribution borne by other cities simply do not apply to Christchurch.

I read somewhere that shared meters was low at around 1%, I can look later

As for the article, yes they seem entitled, and excess usage such as someone mentioning washing the car and leaving the hose going while brushing it is wasteful. I garden, my bill is $80 but I mitigate what I can and I don't excess water, but I do irrigate for obvious reasons. Someone mentioned about its not a quality of life issue. Ok, maybe I may feel happier and richer if my lawns are brown and weedy, veges aren't doing well, and the rest just looks sad. Having said that, for me its a once a year issue in bone dry ChCh. If its ok to settle with brown lawns for the population, then its ok to leave parks and reserves to go brown too, then its fair for all

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3051084 17-Mar-2023 08:54

It’s 25%.

"They did not think it was fair that almost a quarter (25,365) of Christchurch households could not be charged because they share a meter."

The council is trying to argue that it is less then 1% as of those shared meters only 194 would’ve received charges.

"Scales said any inequity around shared meters was not accurate, because only 194 properties out of the 25,365 with shared water meters would have received a bill – less than 1% of the total."

As another poster pointed out what about houses using more then 700 litres a day, or 900 if that’s when charging starts, and the water meter usage per house is being brought down by low users on the same water meter. That would then make it more then 194 houses that would get charged if everyone had their own meter so the council argument of less then 1% is flawed.

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3051100 17-Mar-2023 09:30

boosacnoodle:

rugrat:

If they can have the Chinese taking millions of litres a day, then I believe the whole thing is just revenue gathering.

There are dozens of brands available in NZ, all using locally sourced water, but you chose to point out the Chinese one specifically? Not sure what them being Chinese owned has to do with anything. I would far rather not have Nestle taking our water, for example. Awful company.

In the case of most bottling companies, they used their own pumping equipment so don't have to pay for water (same as anyone else). If you had your own well / pump, you wouldn't have to pay either.

The Chinese one is the one I was aware of for Christchurch. It seemed to receive the most media attention and was the one in my memory to search for.

It’s millions per year, was to late for me to edit post. From memory 8.8 million in article. If other ones operating then it’ll be higher again.

They tell us water is precious and must use it wisely, and yet it is ok to send millions of litres per year off shore to any country.

I noted what Scott3 said "Bottling operations get a lot of hate, but they are fairly small fry in the scheme of water use." so millions is only a small fraction of water usage. Just the number would seem like a big number to most people, and then if there is a water shortage to know that 500-1000 (for houses between 500-1000 litres a month) houses worth of water a month has been taken for profit and bottled, and that is from just one company that aware of.

Also despite a warning from the Christchurch City Council they bored a far deeper bore that could’ve risked contaminating the city’s water supply.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/03/chinese-company-drills-water-bore-in-christchurch-despite-council-warning.html

There could be other companies that have acted as recklessly and no regard for security of water supply, for Christchurch remember reading about this incident.

I would expect most of costs of supplying water is in fixed costs, and marginal cost of extra litres to be small for Christchurch.

With the water being charged, have they dropped the fixed charge for it on the rates? (Question if any one knows.)

1 | 2 | 3