If you thought Three Waters was a dog, how are you feeling now, with the news out today that the Christchurch City Council is looking at going all user pays on it when it comes to water?  

And this isn’t strictly a conversation about Christchurch. It’s a conversation about your philosophical position when it comes to water – something essential to all of us. And I’d be dead against charging people on the basis of how many litres of water they use.  

So the council is considering changing the way it charges those of us who live in Christchurch for water from being part of our rates bill to it being completely user pays. The more water you use, the more you pay.  

And I’m not a fan because, when it comes to something as basic as water, I think it’s unfair to go completely user pays.  

Just because you might use a lot of water, it doesn’t mean you can afford to pay more for it.  

And you might be thinking ‘well, what about electricity? What you pay for power is based on how much you use?’ And I’d say fair point, but the horse has already bolted when it comes to electricity. It doesn't mean we should do the same with water. 

So the council's thinking about making this change as a result of the Government’s water reforms – which it calls “Local Water Done Well”. And is its alternative to Labour’s ill-fated three waters reforms, which were all about taking responsibility for water off the councils. It wanted to take the water assets off council hands too.  

So the Government’s told councils that it’s not taking over but it’s still going to tell them what to do. Which means Christchurch is grappling with how it’s going to deliver what the government wants. Which is essentially deciding whether it’s going to keep running water services in-house, or whether it's going to set up a whole new entity to run water.  

The other question facing the council is how it charges for water. 

And it’s a simple decision the council has to make. Does it keep doing it the way its always done it? Where water is part of your rates bill. Or does it go all user-pays on it and charge people for water depending on how much they use.  

Now before we go any further, let’s forget about the fact that not every property in Christchurch has its own water meter. Because what we’re talking about here is the philosophical debate as to whether water should be an outright transaction, where we pay for what we use, or whether we should all be sharing the load a bit more.   

Sure, if you live on your own in an expensive part of town, then you’re going to effectively pay more for your water than someone in another part of town who’s property might not be worth as much as yours.  

But that seems fair to me.   

Because why should someone who doesn’t live in an expensive part of town but has, say, three or four kids and, because of that, uses a truckload more water than the person living on their own in Fendalton, be forced to pay more?  

The answer is, they shouldn’t.