home

Water metering - current situation, facts & figures, campaign

Current situation

Why meters are a bad idea

• Calls for metering wittingly or unwittingly continue a long-standing campaign for commercialisation of water by business interests and/or those with an ideological commitment to market forces being applied to the management of water.

• Water is a human necessity; there is no ability for people to avoid consumption or to shop around for an alternative. As such it should not be subject to market forces.

• Volumetric charging of water fundamentally changes our relationship to water. Instead of paying for a water connection as part of our rates, water itself becomes a commodity. Those using water for domestic and personal use, become just another consumer of water with no more entitlement to water than business, industry and agriculture who make a profit from it. Allocation of water is determined not by who needs it, but who can afford it. 

• The right to water is enshrined in international treaties as noted in UNESCO General Comment 15. Paragraph 6 of the Comment states "priority in the allocation of water must be given to the right to water for personal and domestic uses." Paragraph 27 states "Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with water expenses as compared to richer households."

• Metering is a blunt instrument with which to limit consumption.

• The effect of metering will be far greater on the poor who have less disposable income than on the rich. The argument that volumetric charging (charging according to how much you use) is fair is wrong. A dollar for those on low incomes is a much greater burden than a dollar for those on high incomes.

• With greater disposable income rich people have little incentive to reduce consumption; they can afford to waste and can keep filling their swimming pools and washing their Mercedes.

• Meanwhile, low income families may have to choose between water and new shoes, or water and food, or may go further into debt to pay water bills. 

• The public health outcomes for water charging are unexplored in New Zealand, or at least not part of the debate. 

• Claims that volumetric charging for water lead to a reduction in consumption are not being made with a view to public health outcomes, social outcomes, or human rights outcomes.

• There are numerous environmental and economic reasons why we should be encouraging people to grow their own vegetables, water metering may lead to people being reluctant to start or maintain vegetable gardens

• Gardening, bathing and toilet flushing are the leading uses of household water. Toilet flushing does not require clean water, and shower water and hosewater doesn't need to be drinkable. The use of water recycling and rainwater should be more properly explored and supported.

• The money earmarked for meters should be spent on subsidising rainwater tanks and grey water systems, techno,ogies that actually conserve water. 

• The provision of clean water to all residents should be a core service of council. Council is making its core services peripheral.

• Water falls from the sky, it’s ludicrous to charge for it. What's next? Air?

Facts and figures

• The use of water by residents of Wellington has been decreasing for over a decade.
• According to the WCC we use about 230 litres per person per day. Despite this the WCC continues to quote a figure of 350 litres per person per day.
• Corporations who are metered for water are charged the same rate per unit as households that have metering.

The campaign

Right to Water, PO Box 9263, Wellington, NZ, Email us, This page last updated 18 November 2009