Planet Rugby Forum

Just how big is this black hole that Fletcher's and The Fat Controller have made for us? No wonder that other projects (largely brought about by failure to keep up with maintenance on vital infrastructure) are having to be funded by increased taxes.

This money could be used on the "schools and hospitals" that Sir John promised he would do when he sold off those assets (but never did).

Fixing 'giant mess' of botched repairs costs EQC $160 million to date
Liz McDonald 20:58, April 4 2018


Fixing Canterbury's botched home repairs has so far cost the Earthquake Commission (EQC) $160 million, more than twice the sum expected two years ago.

The sum is what EQC has spent on its managed re-repair programme. It does not include payouts to homeowners arranging their own re-repair work.

Thousands of EQC repairs, project managed by Fletcher Building, are thought to be faulty or inadequate and EQC currently has over 1200 such cases open. It is also facing more than 300 court claims from homeowners, from a total of 684 cases filed since 2010, with more in the pipeline.

EQC is considering whether it can take legal action against Fletcher over the issue, but has assured homeowners the process will not delay claim settlements.

In mid-2016, the then-Government estimated re-repairs would cost EQC between $60m and $70m.

EQC Minister Megan Woods acknowledged she had not been aware of the updated amount until it was uncovered by a media request, and still did not know how much EQC had spent on re-repairs altogether.

"One of the problems that I encountered when I became minister was an inability to get the information I needed," she said.

Woods said she had asked for figures on payout settlements made so far to be provided urgently, and expected to receive those soon.

She said she was "not prepared to make a guess at the total" that fixing botched repairs would eventually cost EQC.

Woods said that from now on, she would have weekly meetings with EQC chief executive Sid Miller and interim EQC chairwoman Dame Annette King, a former Labour cabinet minister whom she appointed after Sir Maarten Wevers resigned from the role in February.

The minister will also receive regular updates from her recently appointed independent ministerial adviser, Christine Stevenson.

Woods claimed the former Government and former EQC minister Gerry Brownlee had "wilfully underplayed" the re-repair problem, had not resourced it properly, and should bear full responsibility for it.

It gave her "absolutely no pleasure" to be proven right in thinking the issue was worse than publicly stated, she said.

Some poor repairs had been worsening while homeowners battled EQC, and the issue was "a giant mess" Woods had inherited from the previous Government, she said.

EQC has also been under fire for its stance on reimbursing homeowners for reports detailing the nature of botched repairs. Homeowners are required to provide proof that repairs are inadequate, but EQC will only consider reimbursement on "a case by case basis", leaving many thousands of dollars out of pocket.

The organisation has established a new unit to handle 2650 outstanding Canterbury earthquake claims at Woods' request, and is allocating affected homeowners individual case managers.

The Government is also seeking declaratory judgments from the High Court, which it can use as precedents to settle complex claims against EQC.

These include re-repairs with no private insurance claim as the original repairs were under the $100,000 cap, and onsold homes where private insurers accept no over-cap liability.

Stuff

Enz why would you refer to Meagan Woods as “the fat controller”?

Not many interesting articles on Stuff, but I thought this one about the Huranui irrigation scheme was pretty interesting.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/10286 ... -heartland

I was down Culverden/Cheviot area last week, so it immediately rang a bell.

Seems very interesting how conflicted the council are on this issue, and the risk that the council/farmers are asking the community to make through their rates bills when the main beneficiaries are the farmers (and conflicted councillors). All the talk about social benefits seems reasonable, but when you have whole swathes of the rate paying community which won't make any direct or indirect benefit, surely there's a huge ratepayer subsidy of private industry? Taxpayers subsidising private industry is a pretty bloody hard sell. But, at the end of the day it seems that the Council can decide in favour of the scheme regardless of what the community thinks overall - shades of the Hawkes Bay Ruataniwha scheme in that respect. I mean, the community did vote for these councillors, so perhaps the vocal group here is paying for their lack of engagement in local politics.

It seems a decent article in terms of showing the strength of feeling on both sides of the fence, but I'd be interested to here some different views on the issue.

I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

How the water and land is utilised is a separate issue. Conflating irresponsible dairy farming and irrigation is an easy way to construct an argument against it, but it's not necessarily a fair one.

There is a growing chorus of criticism for the Labour government being too fiscally conservative. Not only from left-wing commentators but people like Matthew Hooten as well.

I reckon they have a point. NZ's debt to GDP ratio is really low by international standards at 23% currently. I reckon they can afford to put it out to 30% at least and have a longer debt repayment track. Paying down debt is good but if the nurses, teachers, police need pay rises, people living in cars, hospitals falling apart, and transport infrastructure is barely adequate, then I reckon increase debt-funding. Raising taxes will never go down well. Other countries have much higher debt ratios and they barely blink an eyelid. From memory, I think Australia had something like 44%, Britain up around the 80% mark, the US at 100% and Japan right up at a whopping 250+% mark.

Gordon Bennett.

Perhaps if they stuck to meat, wool, and crops the local opposition might not be so fierce. Seems dairy intensification is the problem for most people because of the damage it does to rivers with the massive amounts of Nitrogen they use.

No doubt irrigation schemes breathe life into communities, but they also take life from the environment.

Perhaps a dairy-free region as a compromise might get this across the line.

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

Auckman wrote:There is a growing chorus of criticism for the Labour government being too fiscally conservative. Not only from left-wing commentators but people like Matthew Hooten as well.

I reckon they have a point. NZ's debt to GDP ratio is really low by international standards at 23% currently. I reckon they can afford to put it out to 30% at least and have a longer debt repayment track. Paying down debt is good but if the nurses, teachers, police need pay rises, people living in cars, hospitals falling apart, and transport infrastructure is barely adequate, then I reckon increase debt-funding. Raising taxes will never go down well. Other countries have much higher debt ratios and they barely blink an eyelid. From memory, I think Australia had something like 44%, Britain up around the 80% mark, the US at 100% and Japan right up at a whopping 250+% mark.

Agreed, our debt levels are very low and with interest rates what they are this is a great time to increase debt to fund the upgrade of our aging infrastructure.

It's a testament to the National Party how well they sold the message of getting to surplus and paying down debt as a sign of competent economic management. Labour felt they had to follow suit in order to have any credibility, and now they are realising how hamstrung they are.

I can't see Labour flouting the rules before the next election. They made a pretty clear promise and going back on your promises in politics is one of the worst things you can do.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

There's a difference between public funding, which should be fair to all ratepayers, and public investment, which doesn't have to be immediately fair to all ratepayers as long as it is earning the council a dividend, that way it does benefit all ratepayers in the long run.

I guess it would come down to whether or not the scheme is profitable. If it earns the council their money back in a few years and then becomes an income stream it would be a good investment.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

What have earthquake issues got to do with irrigation?
What have the water supply issues in Amberley got to do with this irrigation scheme?
Should a council not invest in anything that does not have a direct benefit to every resident?
Should a council not build a swimming pool in Culverden if it doesn't benefit people in Cheviot FFS?

I think you are totally confused.
I live in Hurunui and do not directly benefit from this scheme but I see no downside.
Only good comes irrigation schemes.

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

What have earthquake issues got to do with irrigation?
What have the water supply issues in Amberley got to do with this irrigation scheme?
Should a council not invest in anything that does not have a direct benefit to every resident?
Should a council not build a swimming pool in Culverden if it doesn't benefit people in Cheviot FFS?

I think you are totally confused.
I live in Hurunui and do not directly benefit from this scheme but I see no downside.
Only good comes irrigation schemes.

What about the environment?

Thai guy wrote:

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

What have earthquake issues got to do with irrigation?
What have the water supply issues in Amberley got to do with this irrigation scheme?
Should a council not invest in anything that does not have a direct benefit to every resident?
Should a council not build a swimming pool in Culverden if it doesn't benefit people in Cheviot FFS?

I think you are totally confused.
I live in Hurunui and do not directly benefit from this scheme but I see no downside.
Only good comes irrigation schemes.

What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

That's just not true. Waterways becomes polluted with nitrates and ground water becomes contaminated with pathogens.

You are totally changing the ecosystem, poisoning it, when stuff like this is done.

BillW wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think it's pretty clear that in a region regularly stricken by drought that they would benefit from some sort of irrigation scheme, if the water is available.

But the point is that the water storage wouldn't be available to a vast area of the Council's coverage - e.g. Cheviot - and money hasn't been spent fixing the water supply issues in Amberley, yet they're willing to invest ratepayer money in a scheme that primarily benefits a relatively small area, and an even smaller number of ratepayers within the wider Huranui area. Also, given the ongoing earthquake issues referred to in the article, it seems strange to be prioritising an irrigation scheme.

What have earthquake issues got to do with irrigation?
What have the water supply issues in Amberley got to do with this irrigation scheme?

The council clearly can't afford to do earthquake remediation, improve the water supply and invest in irrigation schemes. As I said, it comes down to prioritisation. I'm furious with my Council that they would fund purchasing land to give to a private Hotel company ahead of fixing the ageing water distribution system, this to me seems a very similar question of priorities. From the article, it seems that a majority (at least an implied majority) would prefer to prioritise other things ahead of irrigation - hence the other alternatives for ratepayer investment are directly relevant.

Thai guy wrote:

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

That's just not true. Waterways becomes polluted with nitrates and ground water becomes contaminated with pathogens.

You are totally changing the ecosystem, poisoning it, when stuff like this is done.

Not necessarily with the sort of water storage system they're trying to justify. Water storage in itself isn't the issue, it's how the water is then used.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

That's just not true. Waterways becomes polluted with nitrates and ground water becomes contaminated with pathogens.

You are totally changing the ecosystem, poisoning it, when stuff like this is done.

Not necessarily with the sort of water storage system they're trying to justify. Water storage in itself isn't the issue, it's how the water is then used.

Well you don't store water for no reason so obviously it's the use of the water which is to irrigate farms which leach fertilisers and animal waste into the water system. Industrial dairying is particularly destructive.

Thai guy wrote:

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

That's just not true. Waterways becomes polluted with nitrates and ground water becomes contaminated with pathogens.

You are totally changing the ecosystem, poisoning it, when stuff like this is done.

Spoken like an earnest kindergarten teacher.
Anyone joining an irrigation scheme has to meet stringent environmental conditions.

It might help if you would try to educate yourself to what is actually happening in this country instead of believing the ignorant crap that pervades social media.

Try this to start with
https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/in ... r-farmers/

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

BillW wrote:

Thai guy wrote:What about the environment?

Invariably a huge improvement in the environment.

That's just not true. Waterways becomes polluted with nitrates and ground water becomes contaminated with pathogens.

You are totally changing the ecosystem, poisoning it, when stuff like this is done.

Spoken like an earnest kindergarten teacher.
Anyone joining an irrigation scheme has to meet stringent environmental conditions.

It might help if you would try to educate yourself to what is actually happening in this country instead of believing the ignorant crap that pervades social media.

Try this to start with
https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/in ... r-farmers/

Ecan, Ecan. Yes that's the outfit where the National government over-rode democracy, sacked the elected representatives and installed their own people.

That's the outfit which then turned a blind eye to water consumption checks because it was too hard to do. And it's the outfit which has overseen an alarming increase in pollution levels of both rivers and aquifers in the region.

What has happened in Canterbury alarmed New Zealanders so much that they turfed out the National government so you might want to rethink the very real effects of agriculture intensification and what it means to the voter.

Siamese dude

Ecan, Ecan. Yes that's the outfit where the National government over-rode democracy, sacked the elected representatives and installed their own people.

That's the outfit which then turned and blind eye to water consumption checks because it was too hard to do. And it's the outfit which has overseen an alarming increase in pollution levels of both rivers and aquifers in the region.

What has happened in Canterbury alarmed New Zealanders so much that they turfed out the National government so you might want to rethink the very real effects of agriculture intensification and what it means to the voter.

What a typically ignorant response.
You never read any of that did you?

Fuck off back to hounding poor old Globus you useless sack of shit.

BillW wrote:Siamese dude

Ecan, Ecan. Yes that's the outfit where the National government over-rode democracy, sacked the elected representatives and installed their own people.

That's the outfit which then turned and blind eye to water consumption checks because it was too hard to do. And it's the outfit which has overseen an alarming increase in pollution levels of both rivers and aquifers in the region.

What has happened in Canterbury alarmed New Zealanders so much that they turfed out the National government so you might want to rethink the very real effects of agriculture intensification and what it means to the voter.

What a typically ignorant response.
You never read any of that did you?

Fuck off back to hounding poor old Globus you useless sack of shit.

Touched a nerve there.

For anyone else interested in gaining some factual insight into what is really happening regarding irrigation in Canterbury here is another site.
http://www.canterburywater.farm/gmp/

The main point is that virtually every farmer in Canterbury has to get a consent to farm their land.
The application for consent will have to be supported with an approved farm environment plan.
These plans are already required to join irrigation schemes.

This of course is one of the reasons that the former dysfunctional regional council was sacked.
They just weren't doing their job.

Ecan has done a lot of work over the intervening years to develop a coherent and sustainable approach to irrigation.
The idea is that these requirements will be a template for other regional councils and be rolled out countrywide.

It would be criminal if all this work was just thrown away by a naive and incompetent incoming government.

So if a Organic dairy farm is irrigated are they “poisoning “ the ecosystems?

Mutton is once again vastly overinflating his actual knowledge ...
Water isn’t poison you dullard

Meh. It's quite clear from my posting that the issue I have and the issue most Kiwis have is industrial scale dairy farming and dairy intensification. Small scale organic farms using recycling of nutrients techniques, etc are obviously less of an issue.

Equally clear is that it's the massive use of nitrogen, other additives, and effluents all associated with the irrigation of industrial dairying which is poisoning the water system, not the water itself. Although major modification of waterways in the form of dams does have negative downstream effects as it were.

I've also said meat, and crops don't have the same impact from what I understand. Good cases can be made for those.

guy smiley wrote:Irrigation isn't the problem though, unless it screws with flow and supply...

irrigation is a good thing and has transformed the place I grew up in. I'd like to see some diversification across Canterbury though, away from so much dairy. We've seen markets fall in the past and Kiwis should know better than throwing all the eggs in one basket. The environmental degradation connected with intensive farming practise is something I struggle with and I'd like to see some serious effort put into reducing that harm in ways that can turn a cash crop... possibly using manure in intensive horticulture or similar. We're smart people, we'll find a way.

Getting back to that article though... he outlines some reasonable doubts about the feasibility of the project and the independence of the reports being flourished. That should be examined with full transparency... it doesn't read well.

The size of the expected council investment is tiny compared to the overall scope of the project. The appearance of council members misappropriating public money in order make themselves rich is being stirred up by those opposed and has little basis in logic.

Before I start my rant, i state that I am not against dairying as a farming practice as it has been part of the country's economic base for over a century and has a valued place in the economy.....my issue is with water. Over the past 10 years, it has become evident that there is a water grab going on in NZ, just as there is in many parts of the world. The naive, like me, were not even aware that this was occurring here until ten years ago, the first thing the previous government stated was: water is owned by no-one and was quickly followed up with ECan being fired. I wondered why at the time.....now ten years later I see more clearly.

Now these days we have all sorts of gobble-de-gook shoved at us in business, schools, society about the earths big goals: Lower green gas emissions, cut use of plastics, go electric, promote sustainable practices.....and all around us daily there seems to have been little change. All of the above still seem to be out of control as people as producers and consumers have little will to change. However, what we have here on the planet is finite.....not infinite as some would argue. Water being one finite resource.....clean water.

Clean potable water in NZ heading towards a cliff in terms of usage. Just this week I was talking to family in Christchurch who have just had their first go at chlorinated water....it stinks and taste is off! This is from a family who have had the best water on offer for their lifetime...and the airwaves this morning are abuzz with the prospect of another 25 million needed to fix wellheads in the city to come out of ratepayers pockets.....while over in Belfast millions of litres of water are being bottled and sent overseas.....for a pittance.

And further down the road, animals are having the best use of clean rural water pumped from aquifers below like there is no tomorrow.

And further up the road, a community is split over a water scheme, as council must decide to provide partial payment at rate-payers expense.

With these ongoing issues, some real leadership is required that will make decisions that not be popular with some sectors of our community, and these decisions must be made on clear thinking.

* That clean potable water is a valuable New Zealand resource which shall be primarily used by NZ citizens (humans) first.

Before I start my rant, i state that I am not against dairying as a farming practice as it has been part of the country's economic base for over a century and has a valued place in the economy.....my issue is with water. Over the past 10 years, it has become evident that there is a water grab going on in NZ, just as there is in many parts of the world. The naive, like me, were not even aware that this was occurring here until ten years ago, the first thing the previous government stated was: water is owned by no-one and was quickly followed up with ECan being fired. I wondered why at the time.....now ten years later I see more clearly.

Now these days we have all sorts of gobble-de-gook shoved at us in business, schools, society about the earths big goals: Lower green gas emissions, cut use of plastics, go electric, promote sustainable practices.....and all around us daily there seems to have been little change. All of the above still seem to be out of control as people as producers and consumers have little will to change. However, what we have here on the planet is finite.....not infinite as some would argue. Water being one finite resource.....clean water.

Clean potable water in NZ heading towards a cliff in terms of usage. Just this week I was talking to family in Christchurch who have just had their first go at chlorinated water....it stinks and taste is off! This is from a family who have had the best water on offer for their lifetime...and the airwaves this morning are abuzz with the prospect of another 25 million needed to fix wellheads in the city to come out of ratepayers pockets.....while over in Belfast millions of litres of water are being bottled and sent overseas.....for a pittance.

And further down the road, animals are having the best use of clean rural water pumped from aquifers below like there is no tomorrow.

And further up the road, a community is split over a water scheme, as council must decide to provide partial payment at rate-payers expense.

With these ongoing issues, some real leadership is required that will make decisions that not be popular with some sectors of our community, and these decisions must be made on clear thinking.

* That clean potable water is a valuable New Zealand resource which shall be primarily used by NZ citizens (humans) first.

* That water is available to our industries next, and that the industries do not compromise each other through that use of water.

* That decisions on water storage and use be made for communities LOCALLY, to serve people and their livelihoods without favour.

* That any extra water we have, be extracted from areas of NZ that have excess, (bottlers) not from areas which draw upon potable water for NZ human use. (Ie....Christchurch, Auckland.)

I'm short sighted, and getting more so as I age and would like to think my cup of tea or coffee is not swimming in chemicals....and concerned that I, have had a lifetime of the good stuff......and would like my kids and grandkids to have the same.

Time for a Government, and Councils to get some balls and start making great decisions about water......for the good of all.....otherwise the rural-urban rift will widen and become really nasty.

Bugger.....ignore the top bit. Went off to get some new tyres fitted.....came back and somehow fecked it up. Sorry.

The one I meant to post.........

Before I start my rant, i state that I am not against dairying as a farming practice as it has been part of the country's economic base for over a century and has a valued place in the economy.....my issue is with water. Over the past 10 years, it has become evident that there is a water grab going on in NZ, just as there is in many parts of the world. The naive, like me, were not even aware that this was occurring here until ten years ago, the first thing the previous government stated was: water is owned by no-one and was quickly followed up with ECan being fired. I wondered why at the time.....now ten years later I see more clearly.

Now these days we have all sorts of gobble-de-gook shoved at us in business, schools, society about the earths big goals: Lower green gas emissions, cut use of plastics, go electric, promote sustainable practices.....and all around us daily there seems to have been little change. All of the above still seem to be out of control as people as producers and consumers have little will to change. However, what we have here on the planet is finite.....not infinite as some would argue. Water being one finite resource.....clean water.

Clean potable water in NZ heading towards a cliff in terms of usage. Just this week I was talking to family in Christchurch who have just had their first go at chlorinated water....it stinks and taste is off! This is from a family who have had the best water on offer for their lifetime...and the airwaves this morning are abuzz with the prospect of another 25 million needed to fix wellheads in the city to come out of ratepayers pockets.....while over in Belfast millions of litres of water are being bottled and sent overseas.....for a pittance.

And further down the road, animals are having the best use of clean rural water pumped from aquifers below like there is no tomorrow.

And further up the road, a community is split over a water scheme, as council must decide to provide partial payment at rate-payers expense.

With these ongoing issues, some real leadership is required that will make decisions that not be popular with some sectors of our community, and these decisions must be made on clear thinking.

* That clean potable water is a valuable New Zealand resource which shall be primarily used by NZ citizens (humans) first.

* That water is available to our industries next, and that the industries do not compromise each other through that use of water.

* That decisions on water storage and use be made for communities LOCALLY, to serve people and their livelihoods without favour.

* That any extra water we have, be extracted from areas of NZ that have excess, (bottlers) not from areas which draw upon potable water for NZ human use. (Ie....Christchurch, Auckland.)

I'm short sighted, and getting more so as I age and would like to think my cup of tea or coffee is not swimming in chemicals....and concerned that I, have had a lifetime of the good stuff......and would like my kids and grandkids to have the same.

Time for a Government, and Councils to get some balls and start making great decisions about water......for the good of all.....otherwise the rural-urban rift will widen and become really nasty.

So terangi48.
Sounds like you one of those that think all the potable water should just flow into the sea.
Why does it matter what others use the water for as long as you have access to clean water?

The chlorination of Christchurch water supply has F-all to do with irrigation, water bottling etc.
It is because of paranoid health and safety concerns and the fact that city dwellers use clean potable water to flush their turds away.

The concern is that in a flood with burst sewer pipes there is a possibility that raw sewage could enter the aquifers through the well heads. I not sure it has ever happened in the past 150 years but the city mothers in their wisdom have decided that the risk is great enough to warrant the chlorination of the water supply for the six months that it will take to seal the well heads.

Meanwhile for years after the earthquakes raw sewerage was pumped into Christchurch rivers and out to sea and the social justice warriors didn't give a toss.

Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

Not quite. They're not issuing new permits. Existing permits are still active, some for 20 years. And new onshore permits will continue to be available.

Trouble is BW.....there isn't much potable water flowing to the sea these days.....

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

Serious question, do you believe in climate change?

terangi48 wrote:Trouble is BW.....there isn't much potable water flowing to the sea these days.....

There's shitloads of it in Canterbury.
Most of the polluted rivers are in cities or unirrigated areas.
Targeted irrigation does not cause the runoff that rainfall does.

BillW wrote:.

The chlorination of Christchurch water supply has F-all to do with irrigation, water bottling etc.
It is because of paranoid health and safety concerns and the fact that city dwellers use clean potable water to flush their turds away.
....

Again, in terms of prioritisation, why should ratepayers accept that irrigation is being given a higher priority than resolving water supply, earthquake or other basic service issues? This seems to be what's happening in the Huranui.

Where I live in the Hutt, we've had water supply issues - E Coli in the bores - yet rather than invest in long term solutions via capital investment, the solution has been to chlorinate the water. At the same time, the Council has purchased land in the CBD which will be 'gifted' to the developer who will build and run a hotel. Why should ratepayers subsidise private interests when basic services aren't being provided to standard?

I agree that irrigation in itself does not necessarily cause greater levels of pollution, but if the aim of irrigation is (instead of protection of supply) intensification of industry, then there will be a higher level of contaminants to flush into waterways when the rains come in.

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

Walk us through that one.

naki111 wrote:

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

Walk us through that one.

I'm sure you are aware of the power of the petrochemical lobby.

They've been burying clean technology proponents for years.

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

This is our nuclear free moment!

Adern and her cronies are just saving the planet for our children and grandchildren.

deadduck wrote:

naki111 wrote:

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

Walk us through that one.

I'm sure you are aware of the power of the petrochemical lobby.

They've been burying clean technology proponents for years.

Yet they can't find a a digger driver who caused millions of dollars worth of damage to the most important pipe in the country.

booji boy wrote:

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

This is our nuclear free moment!

Adern and her cronies are just saving the planet for our children and grandchildren.

And has also impeded potential economic growth by a lot. Immigration is up, housing is still down, what exactly has Ardern achieved in the past 6 months apart from a Labour party sponsored panty raid at a youth camp?

maxbox wrote:

booji boy wrote:

True Blue wrote:Ardern banning oil exploration...hilarious. Any bets on how long she will last as PM? I'm thinking gone by xmas. Govt will follow.

NZ First have just reamed themselves supporting this also.

This is our nuclear free moment!

Adern and her cronies are just saving the planet for our children and grandchildren.

And has also impeded potential economic growth by a lot. Immigration is up, housing is still down, what exactly has Ardern achieved in the past 6 months apart from a Labour party sponsored panty raid at a youth camp?

She's seen off English, Joyce, and Coleman, and been schooling Bridges in the house.

Yeah, it's going to take a lot longer than six months to fix nine years of neglect. Particularly as we are finding out all these secrets the Nats hid under the bed.