Water ownership – first principles

Written By: - Date published: 3:35 pm, July 14th, 2012 - 104 comments
Categories: treaty settlements, water - Tags:

When you have the legal power to control aspects of how something is used, those are property rights, and when you have the legal power to exclude use of something by someone -for instance, by allocating exclusive usage rights to someone else – that’s ownership. The Crown allocates water rights, ipso facto, the Crown believes it owns the water.

If someone, the Crown, has the power to allocate the right to use water then that person, the Crown, must be asserting that it gets to decide what happens with the water – who uses it and how and who doesn’t – ie, that it owns it.

Iwi disagree. And that’s simply an evidential matter. It’s not a matter of whether the water can be owned or not, because clearly it can.

To say you can’t own water but you can own land is soft-headed mysticism. Just because something’s a liquid or a gas doesn’t mean it can’t be owned but the land can be because it’s solid. Otherwise, I must be free to drink at will from all those bottles of water in the dairy.

104 comments on “Water ownership – first principles ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    14 July 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Yes it’s odd to have a National Prime Minister having an anarcho-syndicalist moment. But for argument’s sake let me defend him.

    Theoretically anyone can have a rainwater tank and collected free water, and treat is afterwards. As rain water it’s a free public good.

    In practice the pipe network capex and maintenance, storage and treatment of both wastewater and fresh water all need to be paid for. One pays water companies for all the services and treatment and convenience of supply about that water, rather than paying for raw rainwater itself.

    I think this extends to hydro generation as well. Water facilities were usually formed as public works, and we pay for the added value that the facilities provide.

    Consumers should pay for what consumers take. And that price should be paid to those who have assets that add value to that water, whether that is for potable reticulated water, industrial uses, irrigation, or generation.

    Water belongs to the earth. Those who add value to it, and those who pollute it, should pay those who bring it to us in the state we want it.

    To me what is missing is a water price regulator, in which those who charge for water use in all its forms are required to prove how they came to that price. Just like airports have to prove to airlines the level of airport landing charges, or the Electricity Commission makes sure Transpower is charging the right amount for transmitting bulk electricity. Particularly because in practice water providers are monopolies.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.1
      14 July 2012 at 5:05 pm

      Nah, you’re buying into an ethnocentric approach. Monetary value isn’t the only measure of intrinsic worth.

      • weka 1.1.1
        14 July 2012 at 6:20 pm

        +1

      • OneTrack 1.1.2
        14 July 2012 at 7:24 pm

        So why do Maori want money for it? It sounds like Maori share the “ethnocentric” view that things only have monetary value.

        • felix 1.1.2.1
          14 July 2012 at 7:40 pm

          You might have noticed that maori haven’t actually wanted money for it so far.

          Why do you think that might be?

    • weka 1.2
      14 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

      “Theoretically anyone can have a rainwater tank and collected free water, and treat is afterwards. As rain water it’s a free public good.”

      For now. There are places in the US where it is illegal to collect rainwater, or they limit how much you are allowed to collect (not enough to live on). This is where we are headed when we treat water and land as commodities. The main difference between the US and NZ is that they’re a bit further down the path of turning their island into a desert than us.

      • OneTrack 1.2.1
        14 July 2012 at 7:22 pm

        And Maori are helping to turn water into just another commodity by asserting their ownership of it.

        • mike e 1.2.1.1
          14 July 2012 at 7:42 pm

          OT Europeans taught Maori the value of Money.
          Now Maori are making money after Europeans took just about all their lands by what we call insider trading practices.
          I smell the racial politics of envy!

          • Populuxe1 1.2.1.1.1
            14 July 2012 at 11:31 pm

            Well you would, because you’re a nutter. Except that we’re talking about state owned assets and Maori have all the same rights as any other New Zealand citizen. individual Iwi taking ownership also deprives other Maori of benefit, not just we evil demonic Europeans. Nor do two wrongs make a right – I fail to see why what the crimes and misdemeanors some historical personage whose only connection to me is complexion and language spoken, should be visited upon me – thanks very much. I imagine if a similar claim somehow directly affected you, you might consider things somewhat differently.
             

            • xtasy 1.2.1.1.1.1
              14 July 2012 at 11:42 pm

              Populuxe1: What exactly are you on about, and what are you trying to prove or disprove? I am lost about your rant.

              • Populuxe1 …
                14 July 2012 at 11:49 pm

                Oh I just get bored whenever someone shrieks “racism” in an argument as if it actually proves anything without being justified – especially when it’s historical racism.
                Especially as in this case Maori as a whole will not benefit and in fact will suffer if significant control of resources are given over to individual Iwi.
                Sorry you have a reading disability.

                • xtasy …
                  15 July 2012 at 12:16 am

                  I have NO reading disability and clearly detect your racist slant now.

                  so I have no issues with Maori and the Council or iwi, as long as they are merely seeking a clarification of the law, which is what this is so far all about. You apparently are one trying to dig out issues and edges to create arguments for argument’s sake. That is not what I am interested in. so I suggest you just go to Kiwi Blog or elsewhere, where Farrar Fartarse and such cater for your simple minded nonsense.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    15 July 2012 at 12:29 am

                    Well no – jumping up on a chair, pointing at me and shrieking “racist” is fairly typical of someone who fears debate. Nor does expressing concern of at the possible outcome of something necessarily make one racist just because one of the parties is ethnically grouped.
                    If the law is classified, what then? That’s the gist of it. What does it mean for the country as a whole and all the people in it?
                    “Digging out issues” – well yes, that’s what people who are engaged with the world in any sort of considered way generally do.
                    And given that my concern over the ownership of state assets is driven by socialist concerns, trying to paint me right wing is just stupid and nasty. So you don’t like my style – hack away to your heart’s content – I don’t care. One of the things I like about the Standard is it’s diversity even if I’m not always tolerant of other people’s viewpoints. So you are entitled to attack mine, but do so with logic and reason, not hysterical accusations and attempts to shame me.

                    • xtasy …
                      15 July 2012 at 8:06 pm

                      I do not mind debating with people who have an honest intention to debate and actually do want to discuss true, relevant subject matter.

                      That is what I miss in your bizarre comments, so, sorry, I will not bother answering to that. Trying to suddenly turn into pretended willingness to “debate”, while still ridiculing the importance of having the law interpreted correctly, objectively and fairly, that is proving you are not that serious about it all.

            • mike e 1.2.1.1.1.2
              15 July 2012 at 2:14 am

              populuxe it only took us Irish 400 years to get ours back and I’m not complaining.
              Maori started legal action against unfair land dealing and confiscation in the 1870’s with the help of the church.Because the church saw Maori were being denied their rights as British citizens .

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 July 2012 at 2:18 am

                Except for the minor fact that Ireland and her peoples belong to French, German, Danish and yes, English banks now.

            • mike e 1.2.1.1.1.3
              15 July 2012 at 2:25 am

              pop If you checked out your tribal history and genealogy you might find you do own
              some inheritance.
              I don’t see any Pakeha turning down inheritances.
              Maybe its a self esteem thing with you , most likely your abusive rant suggests so!

              • Populuxe1 …
                15 July 2012 at 7:04 pm

                I didn’t inherit a monopoly on being abusive on this site, so there must be quite a lot of self-esteem thing going around.
                And equating a small inheritance with claiming the national water supply by right of ancestral ownership are not the same things at all. However wills can be legally disputed – so let’s see what happens.
                 

        • weka 1.2.1.2
          14 July 2012 at 7:52 pm

          No, it’s Pakeha that force Maori into Western models of ownership and commodification of nature.
          It looks to me that while Maori might prefer to address Treaty claims from within the framework of their own world views (and their ideas of ‘ownership’ are quite different from Pakeha), they might not be granted that right by NZ legal and political processes. In that case, where they are forced to play the Pakeha game, why should they not get some income or recompense as Pakeha would in the same situation?
           
           

          • QoT 1.2.1.2.1
            14 July 2012 at 11:32 pm

            where they are forced to play the Pakeha game, why should they not get some income or recompense as Pakeha would in the same situation?

            BOOM!

            People seriously need to stop with the “but now we’ve forced Maori to work within our system, how DARE they do things in line with our system instead of their own culture/traditions/worldview which we’ve determinedly stripped from them???”

            • Populuxe1 1.2.1.2.1.1
              14 July 2012 at 11:38 pm

              How DARE people continue to use expressions and language that might possibly have some sort of vaguely sexist baggage attached to them in the distant past now that feminism has begun routing the patriarchy?

              • QoT …
                14 July 2012 at 11:43 pm

                I’m sorry, was that meant to be relevant to my comment, or are you rehashing some drama which I’ve clearly completely forgotten about? If the former, you’re going to need to elaborate. If the latter … WTF?

                • Populuxe1 …
                  14 July 2012 at 11:45 pm

                  Cultural relativism, QoT – the limits of telling other people what to do. You would, I assume, be intolerant of the treatment of women in any number of tribal cultures around the world?

                  • QoT …
                    14 July 2012 at 11:48 pm

                    Sorry, Populuxe, your comments have set off my “trying to pointlessly pick a fight over something irrelevant to the discussion at hand, mainly to troll my feminist views” alarm. Better luck next time!

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    15 July 2012 at 12:44 am

                    Come on QoT – one would assume you’re against genital mutilation, “honour” killings and being treated as chattels. You want to stop that don’t you? In which case how would that not be stripping people “of their own culture/traditions/worldview”? And in any case Iwi wouldn’t be doing “things in line with our system”, because “our system” doesn’t quite understand what Rangatiratanga means.

                    • xtasy …
                      15 July 2012 at 1:27 am

                      Rangatira and so forth is what you HATE, so you like to ridicule the other party to an agreement to what we have in NZ. If you totally reject that treaty, then that means nothing else but declare WAR agains a resident and native people in this country. So that exposes where you come from. Come on, call the game, take it on, take it all the way, we will deal to it, appropriately.

                      Is it not one of those consequences mentioned? Does JK not laugh about it (race war) ? Well, come on, bring it on, mate!

                    • bad12 …
                      15 July 2012 at 1:46 pm

                      Here dickwad, this is what those,(Pakeha), who drafted the Treaty of Waitangi took Rangatiratanga to mean,

                      Remember it was not Maori who wrote either version of the Treaty of Waitangi, it was Pakeha,

                      Treaty of Waitangi,

                      Article Two,

                      Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, THE FULL, EXCLUSIVE, AND UNDISTURBED POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS, FISHERIES, AND OTHER PROPERTIES WHICH THEY MAY COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY POSSESS, SO LONG AS IT IS THEIR WISH AND DESIRE TO RETAIN THE SAME IN THEIR POSSESSION, but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf,

                      There is nothing ambiguous in the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and as the Maori version was written by the very same people who wrote the English version then the above article two of the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is in fact the literal translation of what the Crown intended via use of the word Rangatiratanga in the Maori version of the Treaty,

                      There is no ambiguity in the English version, at the same time as they wrote the English version those writing it also wrote what THEY saw as the Maori translation of what their intentions where in the English version,

                      Even to an obvious simpleton like you, ESTATES and OTHER PROPERTIES would cover possession of both Lakes and Rivers and possession= ownership…

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      15 July 2012 at 7:31 pm

                      Well xtasy, “Hate” is a very strong word, but yes, I suppose I do if Rangatiratanga is to be interpreted as “legal title to state assets” because I am a socialist and socialists are generally against privatisation of state assets. And anyway now you’re beginning to sound hysterical.
                      Bad, time and again it has been pointed out that the English and Maori versions of the Treaty are different, and that Rangatiratanga and Kaitiakitanga are not concepts that translate easily into English much as Ownership has no direct Maori equivalent. This has never been adequately sorted out, and yes, the Crown dicked Maori – I’m not disputing that – I am however disputing that indigenaity should supercede citizenship in this matter.
                      The meaning of Rangatiratanga and Kaitiakitanga in twnety-first century New Zealand is a serious issue that needs discussion, and it shouldn’t be used to deliver further traction to privatisation which is what is happening here.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      15 July 2012 at 9:31 pm

                      Hi Populuxe1,

                      I’m finding it a bit hard to follow your response to Q0T.

                      Are you suggesting that a culture/tradition/worldview that involves a people occupying land and making use of it to live, have children and continue their community is so foreign to Pakeha culture that it is akin to ‘genital mutilation’ and hence something that it was right and proper for Pakeha to do away with and prevent Maori continuing with? 

                      If so, that might explain a lot about the Pakeha worldview … 

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      15 July 2012 at 9:43 pm

                      Yeah, Puddleglum, not my best work. I regret it now – it was cheap and ungraceful. Sorry QoT genuinely meant – the inner troll got away on me.
                      I was comparing apples and pears to draw QoT’s attention to the fact that they’re both in the same fruit bowl and it was a little hypocritical to take one position while not acknowledging the corollary.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      15 July 2012 at 10:29 pm

                      Appreciate your honesty.

          • Populuxe1 1.2.1.2.2
            14 July 2012 at 11:43 pm

            One might argue that Pakeha are forced to play the Pakeha game by the global politico-economic system. Ethical or not, there are limits to ho much traditional and tribal worldviews can be accommodated within the system – not out of choice necessarily, but by sheer global pressure.

            • xtasy 1.2.1.2.2.1
              15 July 2012 at 12:24 am

              The problem is that so called “pakeha” are nearing extinction, given low birth rates, due to materialism, selfishness, and dislike for pro-creation being so predominant amongst them now. So do not blame others for your choices, aye?!

              And what about ‘pakeha’ Russians and some other Eastern Europeans, holding records in wife and girl friend beatings in Europe?

              • Populuxe1 …
                15 July 2012 at 12:36 am

                What are you smoking, xstacy?
                Given Pakeha is usually defined as New Zealanders not of Maori descent and usually of European descent, I’m not sure WTF you’re on about. Russians? Put down the P pipe.
                Nor is there any evidence that family planning is making people who might be loosely described by the archaic term “caucasian” extinct. Or do I detect the sulpherous whiff of homophobia in your little rant?
                 

                • xtasy …
                  15 July 2012 at 1:22 am

                  you arr\e ignorant, I am afraid. You went on about “Pakeha forced to play a certain game” due to global pressures and even referred to “tribal worldviews”. So for fucks sake, what is one supposed to understand of that kind of language.

                  You are a highly manipulated hate preacher, and you have no place on this site, as you have not delivered any constructive, objective and contributing comments at all. It is all just an attack from the low slanted side.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    15 July 2012 at 7:43 pm

                    Um, yes xtasy “tribal worldviews” is perfectly acceptable sociological talk to describe certain kinds of traditional culture that exist in contrast to “internationalism” or “modernism” or whatever you want to call it.
                    Global pressures = international law, trade, geopolitics, globalisation, founded in certain assumptions and practices. I’m not saying it’s good, but it exists.
                    I can’t be all that “highly manipulative” if someone who can’t tell the difference between Russians and Pakeha can apparently detect it – except I’m not. I am, however, putting forth a perspective and defending it, with some trolling on the side just because I’m contrary.

            • Puddleglum 1.2.1.2.2.2
              15 July 2012 at 9:33 pm

              “One might argue that Pakeha are forced to play the Pakeha game by the global politico-economic system”

              That’s an interesting argument. If this argument is correct, I presume you would support efforts to change such a system that coerces ‘even’ Pakeha to play a game they do not wish to play?

              • Populuxe1 …
                15 July 2012 at 9:37 pm

                Yes I would, Puddleglum. I fear globalisation – it homogenises everything like McDonalds no matter how clean the toilets are. Elements of it are reassuring though.
                I think glocalisation is possibly a good compromise as it still allows for diversity of cultural expression, and I’m all for cultural expression – I’m just leery of any cultural expression that suggests control over the commonweal.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glocalisation

                • Puddleglum …
                  15 July 2012 at 10:24 pm

                  That’s good to know and I see where you’re coming from with the reference to glocalisation.

                  I’m a bit old-fashioned so, to me, a ‘culture’ is not something that is ‘expressed’ – it’s something that people live by, materially, socially, economically, psychologically. In order to live a culture it requires, therefore, control over the resources and forces necessary to maintain it.

                  ‘Expressing’ a culture sounds a bit like consumers ‘expressing’ their unique, individual identities via consumer goods. (Did you ever see the BBC documentary ‘Century of the Self’? If so, you’ll get the parallel I’m drawing.)

                  I’ve always thought that glocalisation is basically a case of ‘you can be anything you like, so long as you participate in the global market economy’. Personally, I’m not sure that provides many choices at the cultural level.

                  Though, of course, the Irish can have their Irish bars and drink Guinness, the Japanese can have their Sushi stalls and the French – as I discovered on a visit to Paris in 1990 – can have their fromage bleu dressing on a salad when they have a McDonalds; all of those are simply examples of the commodification of culture which fits very neatly into globalisation. 

        • lefty 1.2.1.3
          15 July 2012 at 10:28 am

          Maori are not turning water into another commodity by owning it because they are talking about a different concept of ownership.

          Some things are so valuable it is foolish to place a monetary price on them because that ineveitably makes them available for abuse and exploitation by the highest bidder.

          It is far better to own them in the sense of being guardians of a treasure so they can be used wisely.

          Our water, air, seas and native forests fall into this category.

          Maori have shown no inclination to put a price on water.

          The Greens however want to totally commidfy water because they believe putting a price on it and subjecting it to market pressures is the best way of having it valued.

          As a pakeha I prefer the Maori approach to protecting our environment and our treasures.

          • weka 1.2.1.3.1
            15 July 2012 at 10:25 pm

            The Greens however want to totally commidfy water because they believe putting a price on it and subjecting it to market pressures is the best way of having it valued
             

            Citation please.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.2.1.4
          15 July 2012 at 10:43 am

          “Maori are helping to turn water into just another commodity”

          What rank hypocrisy! Who is trying to sell the water rights? Not Maori. I note the total lack of outrage at the fact that the National Party behaves as though it owns the water.

      • xtasy 1.2.2
        14 July 2012 at 10:51 pm

        The Resource Management Act also makes a lot impossible in NZ. For instance using water gathered from the rain on the roof, because there may well be health hazards and so forth.

        Find a council outside mainly rural areas allowing it.

        I knew a mate of a mate in Manukau, who tried it, but he got all sorts of hazzles, even threats that if he would not continue paying hypothetical water rates, they would confiscate his home and property!

    • darkhorse 1.3
      18 July 2012 at 8:04 am

      There is a deeper issue that has been the reason why good government and local government has always retained control of airports water supplies and so forth.

      water supplies have a value-in-use – the benefit of a glass of water and a functional value as a water supply – the ability to place many people and industries into a small space – this is a whole of system value of infrastructure and that is why such infrastructures need to be collectively owned by those served by it – because it is an essential service, because it needs to be invested in and maintained for the whole of system value not for the benefit of a rentier or monopolist.  The monopolist benefits from running these systems at a level of scarcity that extracts monopoly rents but not at such a level that provokes some political response.  The result is that the whole economy operates at level dictated by the service owned by the monopolist not by the natural productive limits of the whole system.

  2. xtasy 2
    14 July 2012 at 9:00 pm

    We have now for many years had the privatisation or part privatisation or at least corporatisation of water supplies in virtually all of NZ.

    So when we turn open the tap, the water runs and gets metered. That is in most cases.

    It is common to get charged per litres, kilo-litres and so forth, so the argument, that water is “free” and that we may only pay for the “supply” through pipe networks, admin services and a few other additional bits involved is a total farce.

    Water is already treated as a bloody commodity, because if it was “free” to us as of right, we would not be charged per volume, but perhaps simply only for basic costs to enable it to flow “freely” into our homes or businesses.

    That is not the case. Key is again a total bull-shit artist, as he is selling us a story that is total nonsense when looking at the basic realities.

    Look at your water bills, and you will see, that we now already get charged for the water itself, same as calculated waste water.

    If I want to gather water for free, I need access to springs and that is not possible, as again owners of land will trespass me.

    Key is a total jerk, trying to tell people water it “free”, so we should allow 49 per cent privately owned mixed ownership companies, what run enterprises NZers own already (thus have seized from them) to utilise “free” water, while others have to pay for it.

    Hey, Hone Key, wake up, let the Waitangi Tribunal go its course, make its recommendations, listen to it, act on it, and then set up a national agency looking after ALL water interests of ALL NZers for the future.

    YOur asset sale plan has gone rotten, opened a can of worms, and you are a total idiot as PM. Only the too indifferent and uninformed majority still let you get off the hook , but your days are surely numbered!

    • weka 2.1
      14 July 2012 at 9:20 pm

      I’ve never paid for water on a per litre basis, nor lived anywhere with a water meter, either in town or in rural areas.

      • xtasy 2.1.1
        14 July 2012 at 9:23 pm

        Then you are the lucky exemption. Here in Auckland we all get charged. OK some get unmetered water, but they pay a hefty fixed annual charge now (as far as I gather going up right now), to cover prospective water consumption.

        The plan is, and this will be pursued by WaterCare and other suppliers, to charge all on metered basis. Fixed charges are for one side of costs, but the rest is metered, so consumption is measured and relevant, and the more you use, the more you pay.

        That to me is “commoditisation” and “user pays” for water, no doubt at all. Perhaps also talk to Penny Bright about this, she is a real expert on this!

        • Ad 2.1.1.1
          14 July 2012 at 10:24 pm

          Why are you against metering water use?

          • xtasy 2.1.1.1.1
            14 July 2012 at 10:48 pm

            I am not against water metering, as long as charges are reasonable and fair.

            My argument is, we have a Prime Minister, going around and telling media and the public that water is “free”, which is total garbage and BS.

            So while this goes on, most of us get charged for “use of” water, which is based on consumption rates and metered, thus making it a bloody commodity.

            If Key has any integrity, and if water is supposed to be “free”, he and his government should then abolish charges based on metered water, right?!

            • Paw prick 2.1.1.1.1.1
              15 July 2012 at 11:08 am

              No the price you pay is for the supply of water not for the water it’s self!

              • Murray Olsen …
                15 July 2012 at 1:11 pm

                If that’s the case, prick, why do they charge by volume, rather than a rental on the supply hardware?

            • Paw prick 2.1.1.1.1.2
              15 July 2012 at 11:16 am

              Will you extend that logic to farmers who irrigate 1000s of cubes a day??

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                15 July 2012 at 1:53 pm

                Speaking of farmers, this one got prosecuted for stealing water. So just give it up already.

        • Populuxe1 2.1.1.2
          14 July 2012 at 11:34 pm

          Actually it would appear that Auckland is the exception in this case. Most of New Zealand doesn’t have water meters.

          • xtasy 2.1.1.2.1
            14 July 2012 at 11:44 pm

            So only Aucklanders get ripped off left right and centre!? We are supposed to have “free” water, which is not the case in Auckland and has not been the case in Papakura for a long time? Get Penny Bright onto this, I will not take this further, as it sounds like a hell of a lot of bullshit.

            • felix 2.1.1.2.1.1
              15 July 2012 at 3:18 pm

              I don’t live in Auckland. Water meters are being installed right now.

              Ak will not be the exception for long now that everything’s up for grabs.

          • mike e 2.1.1.2.2
            15 July 2012 at 10:48 am

            Guess who’s allowing Auckland to have free water from the Whanganui
            populuxe Maori.

  3. weka 3
    14 July 2012 at 9:40 pm

    I’m fairly sure that all of Canterbury, Otago and Southland charge for water via rates for domestic use and don’t use meters. I’d guess it’s the same for the whole of the SI.
     
    I take your point though, and agree that using a corporate model to manage water demonstrates that someone owns it (or thinks they do), and that Key is a disingenuous shit.

    • xtasy 3.1
      14 July 2012 at 9:51 pm

      Excuse my lack of info on the South Island situation, but here up north, we have, especially in the Auckland region, been faced with de facto “privatisation” and “user pays” of water for well over ten years now.

      This may serve as a healthy warning to all those down south, to what may well be in store for you next. Beware, be alert and stop it in the beginnings, because once they set up such user pays, it is bloody hard to turn back the clock.

      • Populuxe1 3.1.1
        14 July 2012 at 11:51 pm

        Um, we’ve been arguing against it for donkeys years in both Dunedin and Christchurch. Not that water quality in Dunedin is all that super. But thanks for your concern.

        • xtasy 3.1.1.1
          15 July 2012 at 1:32 am

          You should not “argue”, you should “unite” and take action, but is that beyond your imagination and intention?

  4. NotDarkYet 4
    15 July 2012 at 3:01 pm

    1. ‘Maori’ aren’t claiming ‘ownership’ of water. First, no one speaks for ‘Maori’. Certainly not the NZMC reincarnated with Eddie Durie at the helm. Second, the case, if and when it goes to court, will definitely not bother trying to overturn fundamentals of common law such as free flowing water being incapable of ownership. Though, obviously, water is most definitely owned once captured, in pipes/tanks etc. 4. All that aside, the post is absolutely on the money: gaining a consent to take water from a river is a property right. Further much of our flowing water IS now effectively owned, since under our current crazy system of first in first served consents, most major and accessible rivers are fully allocated: that is, you cannot take any more water from them, because its already all spoken for. The most egregious example is Meridians 30 year right to take ALL the water from the entire Benmore hydro system. That is an extraordinarily valuable property right. And its exclusive, and exclusionary. Albeit, it is more like a rental of the river system than a freehold, since there’s a 30 term involved.
    5. The point, then, is that the NZMC argue that this system is, surely rightly, in the process of being overhauled, and they are yet to have their stake/role in any new system defined, and that role is potentially prejudiced by the current sales.
    6. The weakest link in that argument is definitely the last, though see the case of Meridian outlined above.
    7. The fundamental of the argument, that Maori (qua Maori, or via historical injustice) have rights in water, is not an easy thing to think about, and pat answers only betray unthinking prejudice. IMHO.
    8. The questions are: has the automatic application of the common law depiction of property in water done damage to Maori, and the rights they held and thought they were guaranteed until parting with willingly?: (Yes). Does that require recompense? (Probably) Does that have to be in the form of water rights? (perhaps)

    Its worth remembering New Zealand has busily gone about departing from almost every other presumption of common law on water, and has so often done so too often in order to deny Maori any property rights. See Crown law’s contortions (and eventual recourse to political settlements) over the Whanganui River, Lake Taupo, Lake Waikaremoana. And the foreshore…Etc etc etc….

    • bad12 4.1
      15 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

      My view is this, Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi,(English version), is totally unambiguous, ANY ambiguity between the English and Maori texts of that Treaty are in fact inherent within such text via the translation of the Colonial Governor’s representatives,

      At the time, on behalf of the Crown the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was written the same people who wrote the English text also translated that text into what they thought was the Maori equivalent, Maori on a tribal or Rangatira basis had no imput into the writing of either version so we can take it as written that where there is discordance between the two versions of the treaty, Maori and English, the intention of the Crown was clearly set out in the English version and it was the Crown who wrote the Maori version believing that they were giving a literal translation of their intentions as set out in the English version,

      Article Two, Treaty of Waitangi,(english version), and i quote, ”CONFIRMS AND GUARANTEES TO THE CHIEFS AND TRIBES OF NEW ZEALAND AND TO THE RESPECTIVE FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS THEREOF, THE FULL, EXCLUSIVE, AND UNDISTURBED POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS, ESTATES, FISHERIES, AND OTHER PROPERTIES THAT THEY MAY COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY POSSESS,” unquote,

      From that point on,anything the Crown,(now the New Zealand Government), did within the rivers and lakes of New Zealand from building electricity generating dams to allowing water resources to be allocated by Councils from the rivers and lakes simply breaches the intent of article two,

      Maori are in effect via article two of the Treaty of Waitangi the only legitimate source of the granting of any consent to use any water from the rivers and lakes in their possession at the point of the signing of that treaty….

      • RedLogix 4.1.1
        15 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

        Maori are in effect via article two of the Treaty of Waitangi the only legitimate source of the granting of any consent to use any water from the rivers and lakes in their possession at the point of the signing of that treaty….

        And all other land and resources in this country.

        All you filthy colonising white maggot scum can crawl back to the slums you came from now.

        (Maybe I should add a tag to this one, but for the life of me I can’t think which one…)

        • Pete George 4.1.1.1
          15 July 2012 at 6:37 pm

          This is disgraceful. It deserves strong condemnation from moderators and commenters here.

          • higherstandard 4.1.1.1.1
            15 July 2012 at 7:08 pm

            It’s satire you git.

            RL and I may disagree very regularly but he strongly dislikes bigotry whichever direction it comes from.

            • Pete George 4.1.1.1.1.1
              16 July 2012 at 6:33 am

              RedLogix knew exactly what he was doing here. The only thing he didn’t do was have a red flashing neon sign on it. But he has a history of trying to use satire as an excuse for stirring up political and racial divides. I think it’s a serious misjudgement to use a phrase like that in the current climate.

              It was a deliberate racial provocation, and that can’t be easily laughed off as ‘satire’. Not everyone knows RedLogix (nor agrees with inappropriate satire). And not everyone sees things as ‘satire’ as is evident by mickysavage’s response, he was just making a lame excuse for this on face value.

              You may think RedLogix ‘strongly dislikes bigotry’ but try satire like this directed at Maori while claiming you ‘strongly dislike bigotry’ and see how understanding and approving of satire marty mars et al are. They can fly off the handle on imagined offence.

              (Maybe I should add a tag to this one, but for the life of me I can’t think which one…)

              /using deliberate racial provocation using satire as an excuse

              • felix …
                16 July 2012 at 6:48 am

                Pete.

                It’s painful watching you twist yourself up over something you’ve obviously misunderstood, and now you’re directly attacking a moderator because you’re too stupid to know what you’re reading.

                If you have any sense of self-preservation you’ll prove me wrong by showing that you know what RL’s comment means.

                Go on. State for the record what you understand RL to have been saying. (Should be able to do it in one sentence, it’s not a complicated point he was making)

              • mickysavage …
                16 July 2012 at 6:55 am

                Um Pete it was clear to me it was satire, the mention of tags reinforced this.

                It was not clear to me that you realized it was satire.  You might have been genuinely confused instead of feigning disgust which was the other possibility.  I addressed you presuming the best.  

                Do not confuse my charity for support for your interpretation. 

                • Pete George …
                  16 July 2012 at 6:59 am

                  Thanks for the advice. It’s handy to know that you can say anything you like here as long as you mention tags.

                  And it was interesting to see who swiftly responded.

                  • felix …
                    16 July 2012 at 7:10 am

                    Having witnessed:

                    a) your struggle with very simple analogy and metaphor, and

                    b) your apparent belief that insults, returned verbatim, automatically retain their relevance regardless of context, and

                    c) your inability to follow the most basic “IF THEN” logical sequence,

                    I’m not at all convinced that you have any idea what RL’s comment referred to.

                    Please prove me wrong.

                  • mickysavage …
                    16 July 2012 at 7:59 am

                    Petey did you really quote RL out of context on the sewer?

                    Did you really claim he said “[a]ll you filthy colonising white maggot scum can crawl back to the slums you came from now” without the rest of his comment so that the context was not there?

                    Did you also say:

                    “Someone has to hold them to account DG. Besides, I’m learning a lot about how activists on the left operate”?

                    Do you come over here and stir up trouble just so you can report to your right wing superiors?

                    So many questions …
                     

                    • deuto …
                      16 July 2012 at 8:19 am

                      MS, you bet me to it re PG’s quoting out of context (again) on KB.

                      IMO you and felix have been over generous in your comments above re his possibly misunderstanding the satire. Sorry, his getting on his high horse is faux, considering the seriously racial remarks on FB against Maori on KB – and not a peep from PG on those remarks.

                      Update – and he is now at it again on KB General Debate this morning – that is, now quoting part of your comment there.

                    • mickysavage …
                      16 July 2012 at 8:33 am

                      Thanks Deuto.

                      Petey sure is a psychology textbook full of interesting features! 

                    • felix …
                      16 July 2012 at 8:41 am

                      So now he’s not only slagging off RL here, but after having plenty of opportunity to explain what he’s having trouble grasping, he’s deliberately misquoting him on other sites?

                      Far be it from me etc etc but if it were my site I wouldn’t have him back ever.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 July 2012 at 9:27 am

                      “Do you come over here and stir up trouble just so you can report to your right wing superiors?”

                      That is exactly what the kiwibogcandidate does and look who he hangs with over there his old mate, lowest of the very low, garrett.

                      It is all unravelling pete – everyone knows what you are.

                    • Pete George …
                      16 July 2012 at 10:41 am

                      felix, you’ve been getting hissier lately, because your incessant niggles have been going nowhere? So you decided to help engineer an escalation? Sorry if I didn’t react enough for your wee plan.

                      Far be it from me etc etc but it’s looking a bit desperate isn’t it?

                      You really don’t like free and honest speech, do you.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 July 2012 at 10:54 am

                      “…engineer an escalation…”

                      Keep twisting and turning, wriggling and writhing on the point of that pin, specimen. You’re on display.

                    • felix …
                      16 July 2012 at 10:54 am

                      “So you decided to help engineer an escalation?”

                      If you mean “decided to find out whether you knew what you were reading”, then yes. But I haven’t been running around the internet misquoting you.

                      “You really don’t like free and honest speech, do you.”

                      Yes I do Pete, and I’m encouraging you to take part in some. Unsuccessfully it appears, as you still haven’t attempted to explain what you think RL’s comment meant.

                      Please, prove me wrong and show that you understood it. I urge you.

                      If you won’t, can you really blame me for assuming you can’t?

                    • mickysavage …
                      16 July 2012 at 10:56 am

                      Petey please answer my questions.
                      Did you really claim RL said “[a]ll you filthy colonising white maggot scum can crawl back to the slums you came from now” without the rest of his comment so that the context was not there?
                      Did you also say:
                      “Someone has to hold them to account DG. Besides, I’m learning a lot about how activists on the left operate”?
                      Do you come over here and stir up trouble just so you can report to your right wing superiors?

          • bad12 4.1.1.1.2
            15 July 2012 at 7:11 pm

            Yes you are, as you have received strong condemnation from a number of commentor’s on a daily basis here at the Standard i will not bother to add mine…

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.3
            15 July 2012 at 7:17 pm

            LOL pete you need to take a break from the webs

          • mickysavage 4.1.1.1.4
            15 July 2012 at 7:23 pm

            Yeah.  The theft of lands and forests and waterways and fisheries are immaterial but use a couple of cross words and there is hell to pay.

            • QoT 4.1.1.1.4.1
              16 July 2012 at 9:47 am

              Micky, the feelings of old white dudes are paramount. If we don’t protect old white dudes’ feelings, can we ever truly achieve utopia?

          • Populuxe1 4.1.1.1.5
            15 July 2012 at 7:44 pm

            You might have missed the invisible </tongue_in_cheek> there Pete

            • Pete George 4.1.1.1.5.1
              15 July 2012 at 8:21 pm

              Ah, no, the game was obvious, but it was interesting to see the usual suspects jump in here with nodding approval, compared to the levels of offence they manufacture for things I don’t even say or imply.

              Try playing a trick like that pointed in the opposite racial direction and see how they nod. And play the ‘tongue in cheek’ or tag defence and see how sensitive to humour they are.

              Te Maori puthetic. /end

              • felix …
                15 July 2012 at 8:26 pm

                Nice try Pete.

                Actually, no it wasn’t. That was a terrible try. You’re really not very good at any of this.

                Good to see you finally voicing an opinion though. Pity it’s a horrible one.

                • Pete George …
                  15 July 2012 at 8:31 pm

                  You’re very predictable felix. Have you responded to yesterday’s question yet? Or have you conveniently ignored it?

                  • felix …
                    15 July 2012 at 8:38 pm

                    That thread was an effort to hold you to account for some implications you made but are unwilling to stand behind and unable to explain away when questioned. The logical interpretation has been laid out before you in the simplest possible ways, several times, and you have utterly failed to challenge it.

                    Throwing out a random query to try to change the subject doesn’t alter that, Pete, and I’m still waiting for a serious response.

                    As for this latest little faux par of yours (awkward), what do you think RL’s comment meant?

                    Honestly. What do you really think it meant?

                  • mike e …
                    15 July 2012 at 8:46 pm

                    pg good morning Vietnam petey boy your like the DJ no one likes who plays opposite Robin Williams.
                    lt Steven Hauk a pathetic grovelar who follows the propaganda line and has no soul played by the late Bruno Kirby.

              • marty mars …
                15 July 2012 at 9:42 pm

                Te Maori puthetic. /end

                always got to play the person not the ball eh pete – that just shows the truth of you – nowhere to hide pete, remember you admitted the truth – “I acknowledge I’m sometimes negative and sometimes stir.” http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072012/comment-page-1/#comment-493086 that was a bit of it there wasn’t it pete – a game for you to get your jollies and those jollies must be hard to get because you appear to have a very stunted sense of humour.

        • felix 4.1.1.2
          15 July 2012 at 7:02 pm

          “(Maybe I should add a tag to this one, but for the life of me I can’t think which one…)”

          The “explaining the bleeding obvious to fools” tag might be the go, judging by Pete’s reaction.

      • weka 4.1.2
        15 July 2012 at 8:22 pm

        Maori are in effect via article two of the Treaty of Waitangi the only legitimate source of the granting of any consent to use any water from the rivers and lakes in their possession at the point of the signing of that treaty….
         

        Except where there has been legitimate sale by iwi. Anyone know if any rivers and lakes were sold? I’m assuming that water running through land that was sold was considered by Pakeha and the Crown to become owned by the person who bought the land or by the Crown, but that Maori may have seen this differently.

  5. prism 5
    15 July 2012 at 3:40 pm

    We have metered water in Nelson, metered on volumes. The City Council charges for it. We put in expensive water filters as we were showing too much particulate matter or organisms or both and the treatment plant was expensive, and the filters are also and have to be replaced every 5-10 years. It cut down water use, which is a way of enforced saving, and forcing people to value stuff which costs money to collect and pipe to whatever points. The water collectors built in Africa for villages are a boon. Paying for ours should be kept within bounds but not expected to be free at point of use. General water rates don’t being usage home to individuals.