Residential water meter proposal on shelf for now

Matthew Martin | 25th November 2009

Water metering of all of Rotorua's residential properties will not go ahead - in the short term anyway.

Councillors voted unanimously against universal water metering at a meeting of the Rotorua District Council's works committee yesterday.

Currently only commercial and industrial consumers of Rotorua's urban water supplies are metered, as well as all rural water supplies.

Residential consumers pay a fixed targeted rate of $190 per annum for all the water they require.

Council utilities operations manager Eric Cawte said a recommendation was passed at an extraordinary meeting of the council's finance committee in June that a policy be developed for existing non-metered properties and that the policy be included in the next annual plan process.

A user-pays system could have meant those who used less water paid cheaper rates, while those who used more paid more.

Mr Cawte said the recommendation was on the agenda only to confirm the methodology of the process, if the council went ahead with water metering.

"It would also promote the efficient use of the resource and our responsibilities for the efficient use of public funds," he said.

However, Mr Cawte explained to councillors that Rotorua was in an enviable position when it came to water supply.

"In water supply and waste water strategies we have done we have estimated we have enough capacity ... for the next 40 years."

Mr Cawte said Rotorua did not have the same supply problems as other parts of New Zealand such as Canterbury and the Waikato.

But he said water metering would contribute to efficiency and reduce wastage.

Mr Cawte said initial set-up costs for metered water were about $7.7 million for about 20,000 residential properties.

Councillor Bob Martin led the opposition to the recommendation, saying it would be premature to go ahead with universal water metering.

Mr Martin said education of the public on better ways to conserve the district's water supplies would be better in the short term.

"I wouldn't even look at this for at least 10 to 15 years and I cannot see any sign of this justifying up to $10 million in expenditure.

"Why should the large family be penalised?" he asked.

Works committee chairwoman Glenys Searancke said she agreed with Mr Martin but thought the council would have to look at the option again in the future.

"Our rates are not cheap in this city so let's just leave this alone ... at this time the status quo will remain," she said.