Where there is money to be made, the issue of who owns the underlying asset arises. Those who argue water is a necessity so can not have a commercial value miss the fact of electricity generation, irrigation, and even sales of pure bottled water.
Water is also a necessity of life, which is why generally there is a level at which councils that meter usage provide a quantity gratis before imposing charges. Charging for water use is also a conservation tool, but it clearly assigns a value to this resource.
Water is also a product, an economic input that has a value, and Maori are well within their rights to contest ownership, as is any group that can meet legal and customary requirements to back up its claim.
Issues of ownership come too with a degree of responsibility. Should claims over water be resolved, that will also likely involve some maintenance and obligation to improve the quality of water, as well as ensure plentiful supply.
Would iwi expect to suddenly take on problem waterways and be held accountable for managing the flow of impurities within as well as any improvements? Or would that remain the domain of regional councils?
Those embroiled in the national debate would do well to follow the lead of those involved in the Whanganui River claim, which set a benchmark for preserving the sanctity of our awa as well as laying the foundation for a long-term workable solution.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz