I'm happy to pay a bit for the water I use and the security of knowing it's available when I need it.
Labour is talking about a charge of 1-2 cents per cubic metre for irrigators. That works out to about $20 per hectare per year for vineyards, so about $280 per year for me. I'm willing to pay because I know that the water I take does have a small but finite effect on the environment which is not currently addressed.
And because in the long run, with the right policy, the money will reinforce our clean green image on which all of the primary sector trades.
Hawke's Bay Regional Council's research shows that everyone's water usage has an effect on waterways and the Heretaunga aquifer. Every litre taken out has an infinitesimal effect but it all adds up. My litre has the same effect as yours, so we all should pay.
I have learnt a lot around the TANK table over the past 4.5 years. I have learnt about the connections between groundwater and the rivers and wetlands. How rivers, wetlands, biodiversity and mauri decline as water extraction and discharges increase.
TANK research is showing that there are plenty of environmental gains to be had by doing things smarter, such as planting along waterways to cool the water, catching sediment before it ends up in waterways, converting over time to less impactful growing systems.
TANK and other fora identify a range of initiatives to improve our environment. Whilst we live in a fantastic part of the world, with overall very good environmental conditions, there are plenty of environmental problems that need to be fixed.
But we operate in the real world, so the problems need prioritising, they need funding and it is unrealistic to expect central government to fix every problem.
So the idea of generating a local environmental fund, for local spending, is an appealing one provided we get it right. And the idea of basing that fund on water usage is a sound one.
So if we're all having an effect and we all should pay a bit to put it right, what might that look like?
HBRC's latest modelling data shows that annually around 88 million cu m per year is extracted from the Heretaunga aquifer and the Ngaruroro river, where most of our water comes from.
About half of that goes to irrigators and the rest is split pretty evenly between urban and industrial use.
If everyone paid 2 cents per cubic metre that would be about $1.7 million into an environment fund for Hawke's Bay projects, every year. That's only about $9 per household per year for the urban share.
And it could be offset against HBRC's recent $1m rates increase for their environmental "kickstart" fund.
A universal, affordable, equitable water charge is easily within reach of our region, finally a way to begin to address the cumulative effects of our lives on our waterways.
The cost could be incorporated into our existing rates bills and irrigation consent charges, so no extra administration cost or bills to pay. Larger irrigators and municipal water supplies are already metered.
And with everyone paying a bit, everyone would be on guard against price increases.
Down the track, we would need to look at bringing discharges into the pricing regime. This is a significantly more challenging issue to grapple with. But the need to put an environmental price on dirty water is even more compelling than the need to put a price on clean water.
Starting with a charge on clean water is a logical, achievable way to proceed. We need a national policy to do it under but the money should stay local. Everyone is having an effect, everyone should pay, based on usage.
Let's do it!
Xan Harding is a grape grower, vice-chairman of Hawke's Bay Winegrowers and member of the HB Regional Council TANK group. These are his personal views. Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
