JOHN RAINE: HOLY WATER
- Administrator
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
As the coalition Government reviews Te Mana o Te Wai policy, it must come down on the side of both science and common sense. We must not move to a future where Iwi authorities have an exclusive co-governance role, with the additional costs, cultural impositions and rent seeking this involves. Public concern and anger over future water management in New Zealand are running hot across the country.
Water is essential for life on Earth - no surprise that it should be considered sacred. Water has long been revered as a life-giving force and has been central to religious ceremonies and mythology in many ancient civilisations, for example in India, Greece and Egypt. In ancient Mesopotamia, water was linked to creation myths and deities such as Enki, the god of wisdom and fresh water. In Hindu tradition, the Ganges River is sacred, and its waters are held to embody purifying and liberating qualities.
The sanctification of water is also seen throughout Christian religions, where water is blessed by a member of the clergy to become holy, for example for baptisms. At Lourdes, in Pyrenean France, every year thousands of pilgrims drink or bottle water to take away from the Sanctuary spring. Many believe that they will receive spiritual or physical benefit from this water, although it is not deemed holy unless it has been blessed by a priest.
So, it is understandable that, under Te Ao Māori, water is believed to have a spirit. Even for New Zealanders who do not attach spiritual or religious significance to water, most of us must have felt moved by the presence of a towering waterfall, a calm lake, or the waves of a heavy sea breaking on the shore.
Iwi claim ownership or a special cultural relationship with water, but water is a vital necessity for life and must be seen as a public good. Every farmer and horticulturalist see their relationship with water as fundamental to their living, and other examples abound. The reality is that water is of equal life-giving value to all, even though it is subject to commercial added value when it is piped to our homes or sold in bottled products. Claims of ownership or management authority over water in the natural and/or urban environment, let alone claims over the foreshore, seabed and parts of the national conservation estate, appear as part of a power grab. If such claims of ownership succeed, they will be highly detrimental to community relations and, potentially, the stability of New Zealand society.
When Te Mana or Te Wai was introduced in 2020 under the last Labour Government, the door was opened for regulatory intervention by Iwi authorities on spiritual grounds. As noted by Peter Williams [1],
“The concept of Te Mana o te Wai has introduced vague, spiritual, and subjective frameworks into environmental regulation. Its requirement to prioritise the “mauri” or “life force” of water has led to confusion, inconsistent interpretation, skyrocketing compliance costs, and an erosion of evidence-based decision-making.”
Under Te Mana o te Wai, the “mana” of water is damaged if it is taken from one catchment or water body and mixed with or discharged into another catchment or body.
But, let’s look at the science. Water is made up of countless molecules, each comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. As far as I am aware, no scientific experiment has ever established that water has a spirit or memory. Such beliefs may of course be sincerely held but must not be taught as science in our schools. It is quite incredible that in recent years they have been.
The water cycle, which all children should learn in school, involves water returning to the atmosphere by transpiration from plant life, evaporation from the land, waterways, lakes and seas, and returning to Earth as rain, hail and snow. This continual cycling of water means that there is constant mixing and transfer of water molecules widely from one geographical region or local catchment to another.
As water is constantly precipitated elsewhere through atmospheric processes, it is nonsense to see its “mana” being compromised if it moves to a different catchment. Conversely, arguments about not mixing with other bodies of water of course become valid, but on clear environmental science grounds, if water is contaminated, for example with sewerage or with nitrates from agriculture.
It is a responsibility for everyone to ensure that water quality is preserved. We delegate this responsibility to government and local government, but Iwi do not have special knowledge that is otherwise unavailable through environmental science advisors to our elected officials.
Management of water in our natural environment should not be based on spiritual arguments that rest on a single cultural authority, and which is not representative of the country’s wider population. It must be science- and evidence-based, and this management must not incur costs that rest on cultural or spiritual beliefs. Such beliefs should be respected but not be embedded within our water management policies and processes.
Professor Michael Matthews [2] states,
“The correct, clear-headed appraisal of Mauri has not just cultural and educational consequences, but economic ones. Consider the once-routine monitoring of river, lake and drinking water quality. Local governments would periodically test for bacteria, acidity, nutrient levels, biochemical oxygen demand (BoD), oxygen levels and sundry other (up to twenty-two) agreed upon and measurable factors.
The Taranaki Regional Council, which includes Mt. Egmont and the city of New Plymouth, has for decades done this monitoring at 13 sites. But as of 2023, the Mātauranga Māori notion of Mauri has been added to the orthodox bio-chemical measures of water quality, and will be so monitored. This does not come cheap. With national government assistance, NZD4.95M (USD3M) has been set aside by Taranaki Council for a 5-year period.
Unlike the twenty-two generally accepted bio-chemical or ‘scientific’ indices of water quality, all of which have appropriate measuring techniques and instruments, there are precisely zero techniques, much less instruments, available for measuring mauri in water or even in water environs. So, at the end of five years and with the expenditure of nearly five million NZD, how does anyone know whether mauri has gone up, down, or remained constant? And, of course, once Taranaki has succeeded in getting grant money, it would be expected that the other ten regional councils in the country will do the same thing.”
Iwi authorities effectively hold the country to ransom if imposed costs from cultural or spiritual beliefs are part the management of the health and use of our water resources.
However, it is not only costs of cultural consultation. Monetisation of the control of water resources is now also occurring. What has happened with ownership of the Lake Taupo lakebed passing to Tuwharetoa, and the Waikato River Authority receiving $40m over the next 20 years from Auckland ratepayers, are just two examples of Iwi action on co-governance and its monetisation around the country. We cannot afford for our economy and society to be stifled by this sort of arrangement. In the wider community, it will simply lead to justified accusations of grift against the cultural advisors and those rent-seeking from water in our natural environment.
The coalition Government was elected with a mandate to restore practical, science-based and cost-effective regulation. This means that the only option in their present deliberations over water is to go for Option 3 and scrap Te Mana o te Wai. The Government must also rein in Councils who are enabling a rentier culture to develop around the nation’s water resources. Ultimately, water is so essential as to be sacred to all of us. No single group in our society should be able to control it on cultural grounds, or derive income from it without adding value.
……………………………………………..
John Raine is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering and has formerly held positions as Pro Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice Chancellor in three New Zealand universities.
References
1. Peter Williams (on behalf of the Taxpayers' Union), “The Nats are considering keeping Te Mana o te Wai”, Bassett Brash and Hide 20th July 2025
2. Michael R. Matthews (Hon. Associate Professor, School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW, Sydney, Australia), “Why Mātauranga Māori should not be taught in Science Programmes: Philosophical, Political, and Educational Arguments”, Chapter submitted for publication in a festschrift for Harvey Siegel, editor Ben Kotzee. Collection is to be published by Springer, 2025.