Zone committees

Points made at the meetings:

• Committee make-up must be fair and representative.
• It must be clear whether committee members are volunteers or get paid.
• The process for general ratepayers getting on a committee important.
• The voting structure needs to be spelt out.
• Consider whether committees be set up by council or co-opted.
• There should be a representative from each catchment.
• The committees should be set up and operating before charges are introduced.
• Should the zone committees have the power to set research?

Zone areas and boundaries

Points made at the meetings:

• The zones cut across districts.
• The zones are too big, different schemes will have different issues and costs.
• District council boundaries should be looked at.
• The cross-over between zones needs to be looked at.
• The interaction between groundwater and surface-water catchments needs to be looked at.

Environment Canterbury's response
It makes sense to use the same zones as the Canterbury Water Management Strategy once they are finalised.

The process re zone committees:

• Has the decision to change the funding model been made?

Answer: consultation over these charges occurred in early 2009 and Council decided to impose them, but deferred implementation for 12 months to allow more time for consultation with consent holders and stakeholders. The Working Group is provided a report to Council in February 2010 on how to implement the charges. 

The status of user charges

Questions

• What is the legal status of user charges?
• Do other regional councils have charge for this?

Answer: they are a legal charge under section 36 of the RMA, and are applied by a number of regional councils throughout New Zealand. 

Rating

Point made at a meeting:

• Water consents affect property values, so consented properties are paying higher rates already: therefore leave as a general rate.

Answer: this was considered by Council during consultation over whether to implement the charges.

Rating

Questions asked at meetings:

• Are the user charges equitable for zones with fewer consent holders?

Please include this in your submission if you believe this is an issue.

• Does the UAGC contribute to the investigations and monitoring budget?

Answer: no.

• How will the reduction in general rates affect property owners?

Answer: View the general rate reductions

Costs and work programme

Questions raised at the meetings.

• How were the 50/50 and 70/30 splits for general rates/user charges derived?
• Can the 70/30 ratio be changed in future years?
• Will the investigations and monitoring costs fluctuate as a result of the amount of work done?

Answer: Read further information about dividing up the costs.

• What are the actual costs of the investigations and monitoring programme?

Answer: View our freshwater investigations and monitoring information. 

• Why split up costs for different consent types?
• Is groundwater and surface-water now charged differently?

Answer: there are investigation and monitoring work programmes for both groundwater and surface water issues.

• Are the fixed charges per consent or per consent holder?

Answer: per consent holder, so if a consent holder has 10 consents there will be a single fixed charge, plus the variable charge for the combined consents.

Costs and work programme

Points raised at the meetings:

• The charges should apply only to people who want new consents.
• Some catchments have had irrigation for years and are now being asked to pay for other areas.

Consent monitoring costs and information

Questions raised at the meeting

• Is monitoring of consents still required?
• How much sharing of information between consents and investigations/monitoring?

Answer:  Existing consent monitoring.

Actual use versus consented use (and water metering)

Points raised:

• Consent holders should pay for amount of water used (not consented).
• This would provide economic and environmental benefits.
• Provisional payment system with a rebate for the amount of water not used (similar to IRD tax system).
• Should be able to deduct costs of water metering from council charges.
• Areas of low reliability should be taken into account.
• Seasonal takes are an anomaly as some consents are seasonal, some are not: it would be better to have the same system for all.
• Most irrigation schemes take water for six months, highly variable, not fair to charge on consented (highest) take, should be an average.

The proposal is to impose charges based on consented volumes.

Hydro generation use

Questions asked and points made at meetings:

• Will a hydro generator’s user charges relate to its use?
• Why are hydro generators only paying for 10 per cent of their take?
• The 10 per cent loading is not fair.
• Water used by hydro generators does not generate local benefits.
• Proportionality is a big issue.

Water use and conservation

Point raised:

• There is no mechanism for encouraging conservation.