A pressing issue has arisen in Fiji, and it's time to dive into the details. The future of water supply in Labasa hangs in the balance, and a crucial meeting is set to take place today.
A collaborative effort between the Water Authority of Fiji (WAF), the iTaukei Land Trust Board, and the Department of Lands is underway to address the concerns of the Nakama landowners. These landowners, represented by the mataqali Nabukarabe of Nakama Village in Macuata, have issued a serious threat: they will shut down the Nasarava water catchment if their demands are not met.
The core of the issue lies in lease arrears, with the landowners seeking over one million dollars in payments. A decision on whether to accept the proposed lease arrangements will be made tomorrow, adding a sense of urgency to the situation.
WAF, in a statement to fijivillage News, acknowledges the gravity of the matter and the concerns raised by the landowners regarding the Nasarava Water Catchment. They emphasize the complexity of the situation, explaining that there are two distinct catchments in the area: Nasalasala and Nasarava. These catchments are treated differently from a land administration perspective, with Nasalasala being under a formal lease held by the Director of Lands, and lease rentals being administered and paid through the Department of Lands. The most recent payment for this lease was made in September 2025, according to official records.
However, the Nasarava Catchment, which is at the heart of the current dispute, falls outside the original historical lease boundary. This is a long-standing land administration issue that WAF has been actively working to resolve amicably with all key stakeholders.
Osea Waqainavatu, spokesperson for the mataqali Nabukarabe, shared with fijivillage News that the decision to close the water catchment after seven days from last Thursday, if the payment is not made, has the support of other villagers in Nakama. Waqainavatu highlights that the water source has not been leased by WAF or any other party for water supply purposes over the past 75 years. He further adds that this issue has been repeatedly brought up during meetings with government officials during their visits to the village, but no action has been taken so far.
But here's where it gets controversial... With the future of Labasa's water supply at stake, how will this situation unfold? Will the lease arrears be paid, and will the water catchment remain open? And this is the part most people miss... the intricate land administration processes and historical context that underpin this dispute.
What do you think? Should the government prioritize resolving this issue to ensure a stable water supply, or is there another perspective to consider? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below!
