A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the last
9 years of National-led governemnt: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent
New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms.
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations.
Pricing is a key option among many for putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:57:54 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the last
9 years of National-led governemnt:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent
New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms.
Those factors comprise a perfectly normal and routine infrastructural cost for >the purposes of running a **for-profit** outfit for their own benefit. For the
actual water extracted for their sole use, user pays sounds fair and just.
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations.
If my local council has Treaty concerns regarding the extraction and supplyingof water to serve my needs, I have yet to hear about it.
I use water. I pay for that water in my rates. User pays. For the water extracted and supplied for my **not** for-profit** use, user pays sounds about right. No problem.Most areas in New Zealand do not charge for water for personal use.
Trouble is, I'm now also paying - and will continue to pay into a bottomless hole - for the disgusting and toxic mess our "clean and green" dairy farmers have been making of our once "clean and green" natural waterways.Further report: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-sculpture-environment-minister-nick-smith-defecating-in-glass-water-unveiled-during-christchurch-protest
(snip)
Pricing is a key option among many for putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the
verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of
subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards
resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate
continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
It's said to have been sculpted in horseshit. Arguably distasteful, I know, yet it has to be said that where Smith and horseshit are concerned, both allegory and allusion couldn't be more appropriate.
(snip)
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the last
9 years of National-led governemnt: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent
New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms. We can't afford to charge for the
water itself.
Labour is suggesting a water royalty of two cents per cubic metre. By comparison, irrigators' costs averaged 14 cents per cubic metre,
according to Irrigation New Zealand.
Farmers account for almost 80 percent of the nation's water use
(excluding hydro generators, which return almost all the water they
use to the rivers.)
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations. Anyway,
we've got lots of other policies and programmes for cleaning up water,
and a working party on water allocation is considering some pricing
measures.
But the wisdom of the crowd is correct. Our current water policies and practices are working badly. Pricing is a key option among many for
putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm
:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:31:34 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.
On 04/09/2017 09:57 AM, Rich80105 wrote:
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the lastLabour's propsal is inflationary. Taxcinda herself said so when
9 years of National-led governemnt:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent
New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms. We can't afford to charge for the
water itself.
Labour is suggesting a water royalty of two cents per cubic metre. By
comparison, irrigators' costs averaged 14 cents per cubic metre,
according to Irrigation New Zealand.
Farmers account for almost 80 percent of the nation's water use
(excluding hydro generators, which return almost all the water they
use to the rivers.)
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations. Anyway,
we've got lots of other policies and programmes for cleaning up water,
and a working party on water allocation is considering some pricing
measures.
But the wisdom of the crowd is correct. Our current water policies and
practices are working badly. Pricing is a key option among many for
putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the
verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of
subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards
resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate
continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm
:
Hoskings mentioned it owuld affect pproducers profits, she said, not if >>profit margins were maintained. IOW not if prices were increasexd. On
top of cancelling proppsed tax reductions - it will aadd to the hardship >>Labour will bring to the masses.
I'm not particularly worried about the bottlers that are exporting
water - they will be the main people hit by royalties. The low
proposed level for domestic use will hardly affect retail prices - and
the proceeds will only go part way to covering the costs of clean
water. National's tax cuts would just result in higher debt - or
dirtier rivers.
On 04/09/2017 09:57 AM, Rich80105 wrote:
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the lastLabour's propsal is inflationary. Taxcinda herself said so when
9 years of National-led governemnt:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent
New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms. We can't afford to charge for the
water itself.
Labour is suggesting a water royalty of two cents per cubic metre. By
comparison, irrigators' costs averaged 14 cents per cubic metre,
according to Irrigation New Zealand.
Farmers account for almost 80 percent of the nation's water use
(excluding hydro generators, which return almost all the water they
use to the rivers.)
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations. Anyway,
we've got lots of other policies and programmes for cleaning up water,
and a working party on water allocation is considering some pricing
measures.
But the wisdom of the crowd is correct. Our current water policies and
practices are working badly. Pricing is a key option among many for
putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the
verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of
subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards
resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate
continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm
:
Hoskings mentioned it owuld affect pproducers profits, she said, not if >profit margins were maintained. IOW not if prices were increasexd. On
top of cancelling proppsed tax reductions - it will aadd to the hardship >Labour will bring to the masses.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you don't believe in user pays! Why should ordinary taxpayers foot
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:31:34 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.
On 04/09/2017 09:57 AM, Rich80105 wrote:
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the lastLabour's propsal is inflationary. Taxcinda herself said so when
9 years of National-led governemnt:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in
his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying
for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent >>>> New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store
and distribute water to our farms. We can't afford to charge for the
water itself.
Labour is suggesting a water royalty of two cents per cubic metre. By
comparison, irrigators' costs averaged 14 cents per cubic metre,
according to Irrigation New Zealand.
Farmers account for almost 80 percent of the nation's water use
(excluding hydro generators, which return almost all the water they
use to the rivers.)
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would
open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations. Anyway, >>>> we've got lots of other policies and programmes for cleaning up water, >>>> and a working party on water allocation is considering some pricing
measures.
But the wisdom of the crowd is correct. Our current water policies and >>>> practices are working badly. Pricing is a key option among many for
putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of
that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for
48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the >>>> verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues
from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of
subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards >>>> resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate >>>> continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm
:
Hoskings mentioned it owuld affect pproducers profits, she said, not if >>>profit margins were maintained. IOW not if prices were increasexd. On
top of cancelling proppsed tax reductions - it will aadd to the hardship >>>Labour will bring to the masses.
I'm not particularly worried about the bottlers that are exporting
water - they will be the main people hit by royalties. The low
proposed level for domestic use will hardly affect retail prices - and
the proceeds will only go part way to covering the costs of clean
water. National's tax cuts would just result in higher debt - or
dirtier rivers.
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't you care >about that!
Tony
I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.So you don't believe in user pays! Why should ordinary taxpayers foot
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't you care >>about that!
Tony
the bill for polluted rivers and streams and the major polluters not
be asked to contribute a small amount?
Many of the affected farmers are producing milk that is processed for >overseas markets - in effect exporters. Do you really support the
government budgeting $400 million for further subsidy of irrigation
plans to profit private farmers?
Why should the farmers not meet their own costs? I know of at least
one scheme that took river water for orchards that was totally farmer
funded - but that was before the current crony capitalist Nats were in >government.
Who do you think should pay to clean up the rivers, Tony - tourists?!!
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Snip
I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.So you don't believe in user pays! Why should ordinary taxpayers foot
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't you care
about that!
Tony
the bill for polluted rivers and streams and the major polluters not
be asked to contribute a small amount?
Many of the affected farmers are producing milk that is processed for
overseas markets - in effect exporters. Do you really support the
government budgeting $400 million for further subsidy of irrigation
plans to profit private farmers?
Why should the farmers not meet their own costs? I know of at least
one scheme that took river water for orchards that was totally farmer
funded - but that was before the current crony capitalist Nats were in
government.
Who do you think should pay to clean up the rivers, Tony - tourists?!!
Who do you think pays for all the nice toys that the Labor supporters
enjoy?? Sure isn't the people on welfare but the farming and
agriculture folks. Sure tourism helps but will only take one oil
shock or a the little fat boy in NK to fire off a missile in the
wrong direction and it could dry up overnite..
Labor seems to be trying to drive a wedge between the urban voters
and the rural community with all sorts of scare tactics. You think
that the so called water tax will go towards the so called river clean
up. No . It will go towards all their welfare and free stuff
promises.
On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 23:52:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNon sequitur, of course I do. The question is whether farmers are "the" major polluters, that has yet to be demonstrated/ There are pleanty of town, city and industrial polluters.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you don't believe in user pays!
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:31:34 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.
On 04/09/2017 09:57 AM, Rich80105 wrote:
A good summary of a huge problem and the lack of action from the last >>>>> 9 years of National-led governemnt:Labour's propsal is inflationary. Taxcinda herself said so when >>>>Hoskings mentioned it owuld affect pproducers profits, she said, not if >>>>profit margins were maintained. IOW not if prices were increasexd. On >>>>top of cancelling proppsed tax reductions - it will aadd to the hardship >>>>Labour will bring to the masses.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/02/45811/rod-oram-a-trickle-of-problems-for-a-big-problem
"The vast complexities of water boil down to a simple critical
equation: more use + less quality = angry voters, writes Rod Oram in >>>>> his weekly column.
And they're getting angrier by the day. Businesses must start paying >>>>> for the water they use, 70 percent of the respondents said in a recent >>>>> New Zealand Herald poll.
No we can't pay, say farmers. We're already paying to extract, store >>>>> and distribute water to our farms. We can't afford to charge for the >>>>> water itself.
Labour is suggesting a water royalty of two cents per cubic metre. By >>>>> comparison, irrigators' costs averaged 14 cents per cubic metre,
according to Irrigation New Zealand.
Farmers account for almost 80 percent of the nation's water use
(excluding hydro generators, which return almost all the water they
use to the rivers.)
No we can't charge, says the National-led Government. Doing so would >>>>> open up fraught water ownership issues in Treaty negotiations. Anyway, >>>>> we've got lots of other policies and programmes for cleaning up water, >>>>> and a working party on water allocation is considering some pricing
measures.
But the wisdom of the crowd is correct. Our current water policies and >>>>> practices are working badly. Pricing is a key option among many for
putting them right.
The OECD offered a deeply researched and forcefully argued version of >>>>> that diagnosis and remedy in March in its once-in-a-decade
environmental review of New Zealand. The water chapter accounted for >>>>> 48 of the report's 251 pages.
Simon Upton, head of the OECD’s environment directorate, delivered the >>>>> verdict to the government, which includes some of his old colleagues >>>>> from the early 1990s when as National’s Environment Minister he
brought the Resource Management Act to the statue books. He returns
home next month to become our next Parliamentary Commissioner for the >>>>> Environment."
__________________
It puts the royalties proposed by Labour in perspective - instead of >>>>> subsidising further irrigation, Labour proposed to impose a very
modest royalty on commercial use - and to use the money raised towards >>>>> resolving some of the problems.
Elsewhere, the possibility of NIck Smith losing to the Green candidate >>>>> continues - and it is possible that a statue, to be displayed in
Christchurch and then moved to Nelson, will highlight the lack of
action on water from National and Smith in particular:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/statue-depicts-environment-minister-nick-smith-with-pants-down.html
http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-new-zealand-2017-9789264268203-en.htm
:
I'm not particularly worried about the bottlers that are exporting
water - they will be the main people hit by royalties. The low
proposed level for domestic use will hardly affect retail prices - and >>>the proceeds will only go part way to covering the costs of clean
water. National's tax cuts would just result in higher debt - or
dirtier rivers.
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't you care >>about that!
Tony
Why should ordinary taxpayers footWhat a stupid idea; ignoring the questionable "major polluters" assumption, if farmers are asked to pay it will be passed on to consumers anyway and on the way it will gather middle men costs and GST. I suspect it would be cheaper for the work to be paid for by the government out of the consolidated or other appropriate fund.
the bill for polluted rivers and streams and the major polluters not
be asked to contribute a small amount?
Many of the affected farmers are producing milk that is processed for >overseas markets - in effect exporters. Do you really support theNon sequitur
government budgeting $400 million for further subsidy of irrigation
plans to profit private farmers?
Why should the farmers not meet their own costs?See above, they do currently and any increase in costs will become an even larger burden on the consumer.
I know of at leastStupid man - we must clean up those that need it, and they do not all need it; we should be prepared to pay just like citizens of every other caring country - and Yes, tourists must pay their share. So obvious!
one scheme that took river water for orchards that was totally farmer
funded - but that was before the current crony capitalist Nats were in >government.
Who do you think should pay to clean up the rivers, Tony - tourists?!!
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Snip
I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.So you don't believe in user pays! Why should ordinary taxpayers foot
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't you care
about that!
Tony
the bill for polluted rivers and streams and the major polluters not
be asked to contribute a small amount?
Many of the affected farmers are producing milk that is processed for
overseas markets - in effect exporters. Do you really support the
government budgeting $400 million for further subsidy of irrigation
plans to profit private farmers?
Why should the farmers not meet their own costs? I know of at least
one scheme that took river water for orchards that was totally farmer
funded - but that was before the current crony capitalist Nats were in
government.
Who do you think should pay to clean up the rivers, Tony - tourists?!!
Who do you think pays for all the nice toys that the Labor supporters
enjoy?? Sure isn't the people on welfare but the farming and
agriculture folks. Sure tourism helps but will only take one oil
shock or a the little fat boy in NK to fire off a missile in the
wrong direction and it could dry up overnite..
Labor seems to be trying to drive a wedge between the urban voters
and the rural community with all sorts of scare tactics. You think
that the so called water tax will go towards the so called river clean
up. No . It will go towards all their welfare and free stuff
promises.
On 9/5/2017 8:56 AM, Mutlley wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ever notice how it's the rural world that's blamed for river pollution.
Snip
I am perfectly happy to see exporters of water pay.So you don't believe in user pays! Why should ordinary taxpayers foot
The cost to farmers absolutely will affect everybody in NZ. Or don't
you care
about that!
Tony
the bill for polluted rivers and streams and the major polluters not
be asked to contribute a small amount?
Many of the affected farmers are producing milk that is processed for
overseas markets - in effect exporters. Do you really support the
government budgeting $400 million for further subsidy of irrigation
plans to profit private farmers?
Why should the farmers not meet their own costs? I know of at least
one scheme that took river water for orchards that was totally farmer
funded - but that was before the current crony capitalist Nats were in
government.
Who do you think should pay to clean up the rivers, Tony - tourists?!!
Who do you think pays for all the nice toys that the Labor supporters
enjoy?? Sure isn't the people on welfare but the farming and
agriculture folks. Sure tourism helps but will only take one oil
shock or a the little fat boy in NK to fire off a missile in the
wrong direction and it could dry up overnite..
Labor seems to be trying to drive a wedge between the urban voters
and the rural community with all sorts of scare tactics. You think
that the so called water tax will go towards the so called river clean
up. No . It will go towards all their welfare and free stuff
promises.
And the pollution only happens after a towns sewerage has been dumped in
it.
And those terrible water weeds that are so dreadful yet disappear at
each flood?
For each river and creek there are great stretches of unpolluted
waterway yet the greens and their fellow travellers never seem to be
able to reach those places containing themselves to river mouths...
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich needs to get his hands on the July/August NZ Geographic and read
the special report on rivers. But then with Richie's comprehension
skills it's be just a further waste of the trolls time :)
On 9/6/2017 12:45 AM, Pooh wrote:
Rich needs to get his hands on the July/August NZ Geographic and read
the special report on rivers. But then with Richie's comprehension
skills it's be just a further waste of the trolls time :)
Theres little wrong with our rivers.
Used to be an opinion in the bush where there was a dead animal in the
creek the water was okay a hundred feet downstream.
I always went upstream of any -known- carcass :)
Again, the only access the greens and such have to rivers is near the
outflow where village, town and city sewerage are part of the flow.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 9/6/2017 12:45 AM, Pooh wrote:
Rich needs to get his hands on the July/August NZ Geographic and read
the special report on rivers. But then with Richie's comprehension
skills it's be just a further waste of the trolls time :)
Theres little wrong with our rivers.
Used to be an opinion in the bush where there was a dead animal in the
creek the water was okay a hundred feet downstream.
I always went upstream of any -known- carcass :)
Again, the only access the greens and such have to rivers is near the
outflow where village, town and city sewerage are part of the flow.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:32:22 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,670 |