Welcome to the Province of BC’s Living Water Smart Blog
Living Water Smart is the B.C. government’s plan to keep our water healthy and secure for the future.
Water is essential to all British Columbians and our environment. In the next 25 years, it is projected the province’s population will grow by about 1.4 million people, placing an even greater demand on our water resources. At the same time, we must respond and adapt to climate change while ensuring we do not compromise nature’s needs.
Recognizing this challenge, the B.C. government is embarking on a process of modernizing the Water Act. A key element of this process is to reach out to as many British Columbians to hear your ideas about how best to manage our most important natural resource.
Embarking on the modernization of the Water Act builds on our previous accomplishments and legislative changes. For example, legislation brought into force in 2009 was used for the first time to restrict water withdrawals during low river flows to protect fish populations. We have also been working closely with both the agriculture sector and groundwater users to promote water conservation and make regulatory improvements.
The Living Water Smart blog is an important tool in encouraging dialogue on options for legislative change in modernizing B.C.’s Water Act – which turns 101 years old in 2010.
I encourage you to get involved and join the conversation. Please make a comment and check this site often for updates on how B.C. is working to protect and preserve our precious water resources.
Barry Penner,
Minister of Environment
Top
The short answer is: No water, no food. Therefore, we must ensure that water resources are not wasted especially in urban/suburban areas. Consider raising the price of water in municipal systems, water metering, water use education. Also, tougher sewage waste disposal laws to protect the water we do have. This is doable, right now and will result in savings.
Some further thoughts since December blog of mine
Some more practical suggestions for water conservation:
Make water meters on each home mandatory both old and new in each municipality.
Make water meters on industrial sites mandatory.
Increase the cost of water usage substantially so that it does truely cost money to water your lawn or wash your driveway.
Make grey water directly taken into the gardens of single family homes.
Make sure that gutter water from roads does not go into sewers and that system but rather that it be directed into alternative use storage and sale to ( agricultural uses ?? ) would be one good use for what is now flushed into the sewers.
Make gutter water rainfall on houses go into inground or above ground cisterns for use in gardens.
Plant more trees than already being done through the Forests and Lands department of logging operations.
Stop urban sprall in places like Surrey which tends to excelerate water loss.
Cut the usage by golf courses of water consumption by 50% and even then charge much more than is currently in place for this commercial use type.
And of course, the municiple acts, environmental acts etc etc are going to have to be revamped to reflect all of the above.
My hope for the 1/2 day sessions is that all these blogs are published in a compiled format for easy understanding by all.
My hope is that the compiled format is published for the province public to be informed in a newspaper format.
Just some more suggestions on further reflections since my first blog in December
The Globe and Mail’s article today on the links between climate change and the urgent need for new water laws titled “Dry ski slopes will be least of B.C.’s troubles-Climate change demands new water laws” also refers to the statement issued by the 29 groups calling for action to reform the Water Act, and goes into more depth on these links.
For those interested in the recommendations of 29 groups for what’s needed in a revised water act, please visit:
http://www.watershed-watch.org/news/item.html?nid=487
1. The Gulf Islands of British Columbia, caught between the two largest urban centres in the province, desperately need to be designated as a special groundwater area. Hydrofracturing is becoming more popular, with no licencing or guidlines, threatening to destroy neighbouring wells and causing salt water intrusion on waterfront properties. THIS MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
2. Legislation is also needed to control the size of houses, and to enable the use of rainwater for toilets and gardening on the Gulf Islands.
3. All the islands should have groundwater management studies done such as SFU has completed for Saturna and Hornby Islands.
4. Tax breaks should be given to property owners of water recharge areas on the islands.
5. Subdivisions should not take place in recharge areas.
And another thing:
It seems that recent changes to the health act and/or regulation have given huge discretionary powers to septic installers. Unless I am mistaken current legislation allows “Bill-Bobs Bobcat and Septic” to determine appropriate reductions of offsets between septic fields and existing water wells.
While I as a water well driller with 30 years experience and a fair knowlege aquifers and geology, am required to locate a well no closer than 100 ft. from a septic field, “Billy-Bob” can come in after the well is drilled, use his crystal ball and x-ray vision and locate the septic field 50 ft. from the well. He requires no opinion or input from an engineer, hydrologist or health inspector, and has no mandate to protect the ground water resource.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems like a real problem that needs to be addressed.
Thanks again.
E. coli contamination of the shallow ground water aquifer in Coldstream this week is a wake up call to us all that a “Walkerton West” is a real possibility. The point that this makes in my mind is that while surface water and ground water are intrinsically connected, surface water can be toxic when it is unfiltered and/or untreated. Therefore changes need to be made to provincial legislation that will minimize the accidental introduction of surface water into aquifers. But equaly important is legislation that will PROHIBIT the intentional introduction of surface water into ground water aquifers without first ensuring that any injected water is free of contamination. The ground water resource is far to precious to not give it at least the same legislated respect and protection that we give our lakes and rivers. Thanks for listening
Congratulations on your blog….we need to promote it more…anyhow the Victoria Real Estate Board is strongly supportive of your work on the Water Act. We have our own sub-committee on Ground Water issues and are interested also in learning more about governance suggestions. We have the paper authored by Oliver Brandis from UVIC and have met with him….The Capital Region may not be THE priority region for water issues…we have some acquifer issues and well water issues in Highlands, Metchosin, Central Saanich and the Gulf Islands….but not as much as other regions….nevertheless we have a serious interest in not only participating in WATER ACT discussions…but also in running a pilot project for you on CONSERVATION…Jim Bennett, Government Relations Coordinator, VREB.
I’m glad to see that the general public has an opportunity to help shape and modernize their legislation. I hope the Province is planning on promoting this opportunity in the media all across the province, as well as providing an educational piece for the public on the significance of the Water Act. As J Rogers stated “BC will continue to have difficulty managing and protecting a resource that the government and its citizens don’t understand.” I suspect that the greatest participation will come from more densely populated, urbanized areas and areas where watersheds are managed for multiple uses and often in competition. I would like to see an effort made to gather input from northern rural areas where it isn’t apparent or obvious that there are, or will be, water issues now and in the future. For example, Mountain Pine Beetle communities where landscape-level hydrology, soils, and water quality are being impacted by millions of hectares of dead pine, further compounded by large scale road building and salvage harvesting. Will we ever really know how this will impact local and provincial water quality and quantity? Probably not, and so requires some serious thinking about what we should be doing to mitigate these landscape-level impacts. Thank you!
A logical extension to the ecolocial footprint analysis is a water footprint analysis.
Governments do a faily good job of reporting things like GDP, Unemployement rates, taxation rates. New legislation should include a requirment for reporting (in public the media) real consuption rates of the top ~20 water users in the province, in addition the government should report what the per capita water consumption is. Presumably this data would be accompanied by targets for reduction of water use.
The sooner we start reporting / recording what matters (no more GDP) the sooner governments can start setting priorities for things that actually affect our quality of life.
This would be a good idea if only the words were supported by actions taken. This has not been the case in recent history. I also believe that comments which are not a glowing comment on government actions but which are nevertheless true will never been seen on this forum. This administration has yet to show that it is serious about water quality especially when big business is involved. My sincerest wish is that you go ahead and prove me wrong.
We look forward to a new Water Act that will 1.study and protect watersheds and aquifers,2. change, enforce and update the old water license laws (we, in our area, have been struggling with a licence never used but issued in 1904), 3. protection of and surveillance of wetlands (now, seemingly ignored in the rural areas),the waterways with the watershed must be crown land (previously sort of legislated in the Langley area), recognition and concern for endangered species.
In our area “man” has been allowed to block a water way and change the size of 2 lakes and in the process completely dry up a creek and wetland area home to several endangered species – one being the painted turtle. Those living on the lower lake have had to drill wells because of the 14 foot drop in normal water level and subsequent freezing lake water lines.
We are presently involved in a private/regional district aquifer study and have certainly been in contact with all Govt. groups.
Will this initiative mean that BC cares about the Health of BC Lakes?!!!
An interesting recent commentary (by a very respected environment lawyer) about a cutting edge watershed management plan (Lake Simcoe — in Ontario) – the kind we can only dream of here in BC. She emphasizes the importance of the correct governance and institutional structure to enable this type of leading edge plan.
http://envirolaw.com/real-protection-watersheds/
The author attributes the good foundation work done by the Conservation Authority to enable this kind of progressive and effective plan, which now has real legal teeth – and further, now has the real potential to be replicated around the province.
An important lesson for BC to get its water governance house in order! A modern Water Act also needs modern watershed based governance arrangements to enable the legal changes.
Oliver B
Great job on the site!
I would like to suggest that posts and comments not only be listed by date but also allow other readers to “vote” for good postings and constructive comments so that readers can filter by “positive” ideas.
For example, I found Doug Gosling’s comment on December 29th provides some insight and debate from industry’s perspective. I don’t have much of a reply to his message, but I was looking for a button next to the comment so I can simply hit “agree” or “+1 insightful” or similar. It may keep the interesting discussions floating above and provide easier tracking.
Also, this may provide for some self-governing aspect to the blog so that comments that aren’t useful are placed at the bottom (e.g. “This blog sucks because water is controlled by aliens and I’m awaiting my turn to travel to Xenon Prime V.”) while appropriate messages float to the top (and there appears to be many!)
Hi David, Thanks your suggestion. We have decided not to use voting buttons on our blog because we consider all feedback received equal.
You can search blog posts and associated comments by using tags or categories and comments generally can be searched using the search bar at the top of the page.
Reading all of the comments so far leaves the mind in a spin. There are countless problems, far too many, therefore I shall make only a short comment. Water is the basis of life on this planet. We must do everything in our power to protect it. It should NEVER be a commodity, sold to the highest bidder. It should NEVER be polluted. No industry, no matter how big or powerful or embedded with people in high places, should be allowed to pollute or endanger any watershed, aquifer, lake, river or stream. Fines for doing so must be very high indeed.
Our water falls freely from the sky, it is a gift and we must treat it with the utmost respect, not sell it! No creature on this planet can exist without it. As climate change becomes more evident so will the need for clean water. Please, please, bear that in mind. Water should always remain wholly in the public domain!
Thank you for this opportunity.
agree
I’m ambivalent and dubious…
Yup…no question an updated Water Act would be handy.
Especially one that includes groundwater legislation and water for fish….
BUT…. it has to be vigorously monitored and enforced…
Eg: Existing water licenses need to be reviewed, pruned and monitored for compliance/non-compliance and no nonsense penalties meted out swiftly…no more shilly-shallying.
Eg: the Wood Lake system was documented in 1974 as being “over allocated” (also documented again in 2000/2001 as “over-allocated”)…
Here we are 35 years later and nothing has changed (it may, in fact, have gotten worse) nor has anything been done about it, (ie: no on-the-ground, real-world corrective action).
Eg: Middle Vernon Creek was permitted to go dry in 2003 during the fall Kokanee run and again this year…just a local example.
The updated Water Act also needs to address adequate funding for on-going monitoring, testing, compliance with and adherence to:
“The CANADIAN DRINKING WATER GUIDELINES”
…and…
”The CANADIAN WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES for the PROTECTION of AQUATIC LIFE”…
To this admittedly naive lay-person volunteer, the current BC Government position, seems to be:
- > there is little or no money for anything even remotely involving fish, wildlife, inventory field work, habitat conservation, water quantity and/or quality…etc.
Leadership and political will, although seemingly desperately needed, appear inexplicably absent.
A “do-nothing” position or a “do-as-little-as-possible-to-stay-out-of jail” position.
BC’s natural environment apparently was reportedly “put up for sale”.
Eg: the Ashlu River watershed – a run-of-the-river IPP’s case study
cf: documentary film: “49 Megawatts”
See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8937562248643223326#
Over the past 9 years, other examples are too numerous to list here.
Tangible, on-the-ground, real-world evidence will make believers out of many people, including me.
So, I’m ambivalent and dubious…as much as an updated Water Act might
be desired, needed and wanted.
Re-submitted, as instructed
Rick Simpson
Kelowna, BC
Jan. 2 2010 reply:
First, the BC government,neither socialist or capitalist has been SMART regarding WATER. Preferring short term profits from timber companies(BCTS)that log through,over,on,in,sensitive riparian areas with NO regard for domestic use watersheds. Please try to take this matter beyond rhetoric and stop M.o.F/M.o.E from spraying chemical herbicides on clear-cuts, many small creeks will be poisoned. A recent public notice:”Development of a Pest Management Plan” from Kamloops M.o.F wants the citizens of southern BC to accept a 5 year contract for tons and tons of herbicides to be sprayed in our water. Please explain how SMART that is. Thanks
How about start by making water a human right and keep all water in the public’s hands. Keep the P3 out. As well maybe we should not have a pipeline going over BC to sell Tar sand to China. The tar sand will destroy Northern BC’s Water table.
There have been many public processes over the years and many good recommendations all of which seem to have been studiously ignored by government. When one counts the many thousand of unpaid volunteer hours of concerned citizens whose work went not only unrewarded but had to watch as the situation with water deteriorated it difficult to see how your latest initiative will generate much public enthusiasm.
I remember one of the solutions that generated a broad consensus was to create a super ministry tasked with managing water whose powers would trump all other ministries when addressing the protection of water. This never happened.
The need is greater than ever to address water. Receding glaciers and climate change will pose water problems on a scale whose dimensions keep expanding with our increased understanding and awareness of the implications of what we are doing to the atmosphere and its effects on climate, oceans, and fresh water.
I have concerns about geo-engineering and what may already be being done to our water by chem trails and other clandestine programs of which their is ample evidence but little government acknowledgement.
I also have concerns about the business as usual approach to forest management, tar sands development, off shore oil and gas,… that our present government supports with such unreserved abandon while at the same time trying to spin an image of concern about water, environmental sustainability, and climate change.
It seems to me you can’t have it both ways and true leadership would face the extent of our collective challenges head-on admitting to the people the extreme hazards and threats to our very existence posed by exceeding the tipping points that our scientific community is revealing to us.
Where I live our watersheds are under massive destruction by industrial logging. We are experiencing flooding, droughts, loss of habitat for all manner of extremely threatened plants, fish, insects and animals. Our drinking water is being degraded by everything from chemical fertilizers, pesticides and toxins that reside in sewage sludge that is distributed on the surface of the forest as a fertilized and convenient dumping ground. The drinking water reservoire at Jump Lake contains a dead zone from putrification of excess organic runoff from clear cut forests. The list could go on.
If you are serious about addressing these issues you will have to get rid of restrictions like not impacting the annual allowable cut by more than 1% in your efforts to protect water. What is more important the water that supports all life of the profits of some off shore corporation?
Please do not edit this comment.
Historically, all peoples at all times have protected their watersheds.
Access to quality water for drinking and washing is not only the basis of human health, but of all human settlement. Access to quantity of water is the basis for all agriculture and industry. The principles of legal pluralism explain that when statute law meets traditional wisdom (common sense/common law) head-on, unrelenting agitation from the public is only to be expected and solutions must be sought to end this conflict.
A true “modernization” of the water act would in fact accomplish three things that would be in the public interest.
First, it would remove the current wording in the Act that excludes resource extraction activities (both forestry and mining) from affecting the volume and safety of our drinking water.
Second, considering the concerns of the government regarding the threats of both the beetle kill and so-called climate change on consumptive use watersheds, the government should reinstate community watershed protections which have historically protected our sources of drinking water. Under the former Act, this protection of community watersheds included by definition ALL streams that had more than 2 domestic use water licenses registered on them. Thus rural residents holding consumptive use licenses but not part of a community water system would have their domestic use rights protected as would all community water systems.
Third, considering the advancements in eco-system science and green economics and the government’s avowed interest in community sustainability, nothing is more important than understanding both how our forest cover is the key to our water supply sustainability and how the costs of destroying our watersheds needs to be factored into discussions of the economic costs of maintaining our water supply. It’s not just about resource extraction jobs, you see.
On your website, you present pie charts of water license distribution in BC. These charts show that 98% of water licences are issued for the production of hydro-electricity. Only 2% are issued for all other uses including community and individual water use, agriculture, commercial and industrial use and wet-land and river-flow protection.
Of that 2% of surface water allocations only 1% is dedicated to domestic use water licenses and 34% to waterworks (community water & wastewater systems). What this means is that we are talking about protecting only .02% of all surface water allocations for domestic use licences and 6.8% of all allocations for urban & rural waterworks.
That is a total of only 7% of the surface water allocations in BC that citizens want protected so they have clean, guaranteed flows of water in their homes and businesses. Considering that 75% to 85% of BC citizens receive their water from surface water sources, that this protection would be in the public interest, is not the question. What is the question is whether the government has the will to protect our rights to quality and quantity of water for drinking, bathing, cooking and wastewater systems. Surely in the interests of health alone, water protection is the “modern” approach to be followed in revisions to the Water Act.
It is extremely short-sited and distinctly “old-fashioned” to believe that the government can continue to relax regulation of all our natural resources to the benefit of corporate interests at the expense of the public interest. If the government continues on their current course in these matters, both political and economic repercussions to are to be expected.
I just wanted to correct an error I made in my calculations in the above comments.
This sentence:
“That is a total of only 7% of the surface water allocations in BC that citizens want protected so they have clean, guaranteed flows of water in their homes . . .”
should read, not 7%, but only 0.3 % of all water allocations. If we are considering only the 2% of water allocations that are not for hydro-power production, then the figure would 12% of all the “other-use” water allocations.
I refer the public to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/surface_water/volume_purpose.pdf)
for details of the allocations in chart and table form.
Thanks for your interest in protecting stream flow in our watersheds and water use for domestic purposes, agriculture and industry Nelle.
Through Water Act Modernization Government will be protecting both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water. For more information about water uses in British Columbia see: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/efficiency.html
I have MANY comments on WATER as a person who is involved in our whole effort to bring control of our water sources back into public hands. Aquifers ( groundwater) need mapping across this province so that unbridled development is not allowed where there is not adequate,renewable water supplies.
Our watersheds are another HUGE issue! There are few watersheds in this province that are publicly owned and they must all become publicly owned and should be considered off bounds to any logging or ownership by forestry corporations.The government could start by protecting designated community drinking-watersheds from the incessant scourge of logging. Take a Google Earth flight over the Nanaimo drinking watershed for example and see the horrific legacy of private-land logging. The entire 350 sq.km. drinking watershed has been stripped of not only every stick of its once-magnificent primaeval forest cover, but so too have the second forests been stripped off. The Jump Lake reservoir, from where the residents of Nanaimo obtain their drinking water has the highest concentration of logging roads in the province. After heavy rains, massive turbidity plumes can be seen running into the lake. The entire watershed was utterly destroyed by the giant American logging corporation. The entire watershed is owned as ‘private land’ with virtually zero oversight nor even the slightest environmental protections. This Corporation, unbeknownst to the Greater Nanaimo Water District spread more than 60 tons of chemical fertilizers into the area around Jump Lake before it was proven that the Agrium product they were using was derived from US industrial waste containing dioxins.
The government should immediately confiscate all privately held community drinking water supply areas, and designate all such areas, public and private, as off-limits to any sort of logging. We need the very highest standards of protection for these lands which must be set aside solely for the production of pure drinking water, -in perpetuity. Politically, such action would be easily accomplished.
Along with amendments to the Water Act, there must be credibility and enforcement placed back into the Department of Environment.
If the Water Act is to be amended…please give it some meat that is turned toward public ownership of the quality and the supply of water.
The best way to manage water, our most important natural resource, would be to legislate some interim measures which would prevent further deterioration of our valuable water resources until the modernization of the Water Act takes place.
For example, Compliance Coal & others are proposing a coal mine for the Tsable river in the Fanny Bay watershed area on Vancouver Island to mine about 2.2 million tons of coal a year for 20 years. The aquifers in and around the coal tenures have not been mapped so there’s no way of understanding the relationship of the underground water, streams, wetlands and aquifers that supply drinking water.
So what interim measures will be taken to protect our watersheds from this and other such proposals?
I must be a skeptic, I would like to see laws passed that say the people that wanted and OK’ed the logging of the Capilino Water shed are sued for the cost of the tunnel and treatment plant. I do not care if you get the money from there great grand kids. This smells to me like anouther carbon tax idea, I pay and they build a road to whistler or some other ski hill. I live on the Kettle river, and there is already talk of Big White being told they can not touch the water in the river, Personally I do not believe them but time will tell. Just like the logging industry they will sell the water to the highest bidder, our only saving grace is that the river crosses the boarder, and the Americans might have a treaty to stop them?
Congratulations on a timely launch to a superb idea. However, now begun, let us not relax at all on this energy or let any apparent lack of political will ever succeed in diminishing the whole effort. There will be no laurels to rest on until the trajectory and ultimate journey of this launch is achieved and managed along with full public vision and trust.
I would ask the minister how he ethically reconciles this important emphasis on how we deal with declining fresh water reserves, with government policy on piping reserves pumped from the Alberta Tar Sands, which are exponentially depleting Alberta’s fresh water reserves? Further what implications might this have for use of our important fresh water reserves in the future?
Good on the BC Govt for opening this discussion up to the public. Now the key is….are they sincere about the caring about the public’s opinion and, most of all, doing the right thing.
My first question is why focus only on the Water Act when we have other very relevant acts, ie, Drinking Water Protection Act.
I work in the industry and my biggest concern is that there are thousands of small water systems operating in BC that are doing virtually nothing to improve their potable water supply because of a) confusing direction by regulators about their responsibilities…and enforcement, and b) the lack of funding for such systems.
I feel that govt has to find a way for those suppliers to fund some very necessary upgrading. In addition, when the Drinking Water Protection regs first came into being an operator was required for all systems. They soon amended the regs to extinguish that requirement. To my mind that was the wrong thing to do (and lets face it, it was likely due to voters pressure on politicians) because trained operators are required to help the suppliers understand the operation of their systems.
Funding does not have to be a gift. It can be in the form of a low interest loan….much like a home mortgage, paid back over 20-30 years.
There are so many ideas that should be explored there isn’t enough room here to get into it all.
But another concern is the inconsistencies between Health Authorities. The first one that comes to mind is that one Health Authority may accept a Construction Permit from an experienced supplier or other persons with technical training while another Health Authority will only accept a P. Eng’s submission. When you dealing with small water systems it is a serious imposition on the water supplier when you tell him/her that they HAVE TO use a P.Eng….when all the while there is an experienced person that can do a very credible job for 1/4 the price. Smacks of P.Engs protecting other P.Engs to me. Now, is govt going to have the balls to take that one on? We’ll see.
One last comment. I think its time we started looking at permitting water extraction by wells. We have been doing it for a long time with surface water…why not groundwater. Water is too valuable for us to ignore this any longer.
I only hope this is a serious mission because all of us are too busy to enter a forum for politicians to base their next election on.
Good luck.
Doug Gosling
Source To Tap Water Management
Thank you for your question.
The Water Act modernization project offers a chance to look at the planning framework for water and consider ways to improve the uptake and practice of watershed planning.
There are a number of Acts that affect the way water is used and managed. It is likely that some of changes proposed in the modernization of the Water Act will require these related Acts to be examined.
For example the Ministry of Environment are working with the Ministry of Health as Government review both the current Water Act and Drinking Water Protection Act.. For more information about the review of governance arrangements see: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/governance.html
You may also be interested in the way Water Act Modernization is considering regulating ground water.
Water is a precious commodity, even in a rain forest such as Vancouver Island. As a steering committee member of CoalWatch Comox Valley, I’m particularly concerned about the proposed underground coal mine near Fanny Bay, Vancouver Island, and the effects the mine would have on the underground water quality, shellfish industry, and air quality. In this day in age, do we want to mine the coal, have it shipped to China, and create massive amounts of CO2 in the process??
Thank you for addressing this upcoming issue well in advance of the necessity of drought and lack of water that is potable.
Some suggestions gleened over the years and through travel to other and dryer areas.
Water meters on homes, offices and factories should be made mandatory. The provincial government can offer susidies and tax incentives to help folks along the way.
Two flush system ( one for yellow and another for brown )
in all homes offices and factories to be mandatory. Same incentives as above.
Encourage the use of cisterns in all rural and semi rural areas.
Make housing codes madatory to have both grey and sewer water utilized differently. Grey water into the garden and if no garden, movable tanks.
Look at the systems utilized in Arizonal and specifically, in Las Vegas. They are one of the most progressive municipalities in North America for the utilization of this soon to be scarce resource.
Have zero sale of commercial water to outside jurisdictions.
Have a serious increase in water use rates for agriculture.
Change the manner in which irrigation is allowed onto vegetable and fruit crops.
Ban washing of cars in commercial facilities unless the waste water is utilized in a recycleable manner for those self same commecial locations – use it more than once. Think about the necessity of pure clean water to remove dirt????? Is it really necessary??? Charge big time for single use and recycle use becomes prevelant.
There are a few suggestions off the top of my mind.
David R Pacey
RAdium Hot Springs
Now I have reviewed more, I suggest that BC has made a poor choice of reports and documents to support the water legislation review. As most people in water resources realize, Ontario has a poor record on allocation and protecting water. Alberta’s extensive review both for its water act review and for Water For Life process would be a better starting point. Alberta probably leads Canada for management and protection of water resources while still allowing development to occur. N&L has also improved its water legislation and has some good ideas.
And don’t forget the work done by the federal government, especially the background documents for the Federal Water Policy.
And put the documents on line so they are accessible.
Make the existing BC water related legislation and regulations easier to access from the blog site. I use the CanLII Databases but I’m sure the BC government has one that is easily accessed.
BC will continue to have difficulty managing and protecting a resource that the government and its citizens don’t understand. The revised legislation and regulations must ensure that the government and water users monitor the location, quantity and quality of water.
Municipalities, like Alberta ones, need to provide diversion rates and quality of releases. And government must verify (monitor) the data provided. Industry has to so why shouldn’t municipalities?
All monitoring data obtained by the government should also be available to the general public in raw form or a form easily understood. More data of good quality will allow better stewardship of the water resources.
It’s hard for me to get excited about “Championing” the future of Ground Water (two words now) when we still have not dealt with all the great work we have done in the past. I am referring to Phase II of the new GW regulations which still languishes on some shelf in Victoria. As part of the GW Advisory Board, which spent the last two and a half years drafting the second phase, I find it unconscionable that the government would blow off this critical legislation which addresses key issues pertaining to the conservation and protection of our aquifers as well as putting teeth into the Act. Instead, they have opted to spend the much needed money and resources on yet another program which distracts our focus from making real changes to the Water Protect Act. We all know the real story by now, the government hasn’t got the guts to legislate in Phase II because it doesn’t want to spend the money. Phase II will offer real conservation and protection of our resources and hold contractors and individuals responsible if they fail to comply. This is what our industry and the public want. But No. Instead they come up with this airy fairy program (Living Water Smart) which tells everyone how warm and fuzzy we all are about water issues and how the governments here to help us. I can just see the Minister, like Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music, skipping over the meadows singing the praises of the Living Water Smart program while our aquifers continue to decline, our policy makers are given no direction and the public have no protection. All done at a fraction of the price of what real regulations could bring to this province. After trying to bring real changes to water regulations for the past 15 years, I can only hope that it won’t take another Walkerton to get our government serious about Ground Water regulations.
That’s my rant for today. Feel free to pass this on to whomever you feel needs a snicker or find a new cause.
Dave E. Mellis, Cert. Water Specialist-V
Owner / Sales Representative
E.D.S. Pumps & Water Treatment Ltd.
http://www.edspumps.com
I congratulate you as to the first institute blog in Canada that shows some brains. I even wrote about it in my blog Ontario Geofish! I was in gov’t, and somebody here must have charged the windmills to get this going.
On what date is the Provincial Government going to come forward with Groundwater Legislation?
At the present time there is no protection for local aquifers, from the predatory instincts of commercial extractors of Groundwater from local aquifers.
This lack of protection, has resulted in the highest Provincial courts Grandfathering the unlimited, commercial extraction of groundwater from residential wells. This situation does not complement your stated objectives.
The Agricultural Land Commission even has difficulty dealing with the same, unlimited, commercial extraction of Agricultural Land Reserve groundwater for non-farm use (the ALR Act specifically requires a permit for this purpose!)
So again, what is the date of the forthcoming legislation protecting the integrity of Groundwater supplies in local Aquifers?
Sincerely, Jeremy T.P.Baker, Board member of the Gabriola Groundwater Management Society.
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your question. You’re right, with few exceptions British Columbia does not currently regulate, license or permit the quantity of ground water from aquifers. After extensive consultation, the advice on Ground Water Advisory, and Islands Trust, Government recognise the pressure this is putting on our resources and the issues it raises on neighbouring well owners and communities.
As a result Government, through Living Water Smart, committed to improving the protection groundwater quality and quantity. This included a commitment to regulate the use of ground water – that is, the volume of water extracted – in priority areas and for large withdrawals elsewhere in the province. These improvements will be addressed through Water Act Modernization.
Thank you for this step toward open interactive government and policy, particularly on the issue of water.
The living water smart guide that was released last year provides a good roadmap as to where the province is heading with water policy, but still of concern is the level of protection of our waterways and water sources, including issues such as Shanker’s Bend Dam and the Columbia Basin Treaty.
There needs to be robust localized powers over water issues, driven by a provincial or national plan, but implemented with a local or regional focus, in some cases Municipalities or Regional Districts may need more power to manage water, or at least have a great say regarding water within their jurisdiction.
I’ll be looking forward to updates on this blog.
Mike Thomas
http://urbanworkbench.com
One comment on the blog page: it’s simplicity is great, but easy links to a variety of related commentary and documentation on this issue would be useful, would encourage more people to engage in the dialogue, and would increase impressions of government transparency. include links to government docs as well as related policy commentary from NGOs & universities.
Cedar, thanks for the feedback on the blog page. We’ve included links to a range of background resources by topic area in the left hand margin under ‘Reports and Publications’ and ‘Helpful Water Web Links’. If you have other relevant sources in mind, please feel free to post a comment.
Living Water Smart Team
Great idea folks. I’ll second David Eave’s commentary (see link in Liz Hendricks’ post) in saying that it’s good to see our government experimenting with this kind of participatory tool. Top of mind recommendations for water policy in BC include shifting the dialogue on climate change adaptation to a more multi-dimensional approach than simply ‘flexibility’, which tends to translate into overly broad objectives/targets and weak adaptive management strategies. Current water-related adaptation research highlights at least a dozen other dimensions that contribute to climate change resilience. I’d also encourage more legal teeth for community source water protection, particularly in relation to privately managed forest lands and associated regulations/laws. It would be ideal if all community watersheds in BC had the same degree of protection as the GVRD watersheds, significant steps in that direction would be nice to see.
Cedar Morton
Phd Candidate, SFU School of Resource & Environmental Management
Glad to see this as one place for input into this important process. Would be great if visitors can also view the existing Water Act linked here somewhere…
Susanne, thanks for the comment. If you open ‘Living Water Smart’ in the left hand margin and then the ‘Doing Business Differently’ tab, you’ll find links to ‘Modernizing Our Water Laws’ and the Water Act.
Here is a direct link: http://livingwatersmart.ca/business/water_laws.html
We’ll look into making this link more prominent
Living Water Smart Team
Implementing Living Water Smart would be one of the most progressive environmental policies to be undertaken in BC over the last 40 years. We encourage the Province to make this a high legislative priority and provide the necessary budget support to line agencies to ensure actions on-the-ground reflect political commitment!
This new blog is an excellent idea. By BC gov figures the surplus water to the total needs of BC runs to 400,000,000 acre feet of fresh water per year – truly a renewable resource. By 1990 the BCG had issued six (6) licenses for export of bulk water by means of marine transport vessels. SUN BELT WATER CAPTURERD THE FIRST CONTRACT, BUT THE BCG CHANGES THE RULES. WHEN WILL THE BCG SETTLE THE CLAIM WITH SUN BELT – OR RE-ISSUE THEIR LICENSE? Jack Lindsey, Chair/CEO, SUN BELT WATER. sEE http://WWW.SUNBELTWATER.COM
Jack, thank you for your support of the blogging approach. We’re optimistic that it will help more British Columbians be part of developing a new Water Act for the province.
Regarding your comment about Sun Belt, we will not be able to address your concern in this forum. The purpose of the blog is to encourage dialogue on options for modernizing BC’s Water Act. Any future comments focussed on specific disputes will be considered ‘too far off topic’ under our moderation policy. However, we invite you to comment on broader issues of water stewardship such as water licensing or allocation.
Thanks for your understanding.
Living Water Smart Team
Conservation of what will undoubtedly be our most precious resource needs to gain momentum within both the Provincial and Federal Authorities alike. We are educating end users one person, one company and one municipality at a time on water conservation within their irrigation systems. Each program introduced and implemented within our systems will pay dividends for generations. Our children and their children need this foresight now. We encourage you to continue sharing and supporting initiatives which ultimately allow us all to continue down the path of health and prosperity. We applaud your efforts.
Sincerely,
Brad Burnell
Waterkind Consulting Services
Great work!
Check out David Eaves commentary at:
http://eaves.ca/2009/12/21/bc-governments-blog-on-renewing-the-water-act/
I have receive an e-mail from our company’s CTO giving me a link to your site. Yes indeed congradulations.
I would like to suggest that all municipal water be recycled especially in urban areas. The water component from wastewater should be included also in water recycling regulations. Everyone should pay for the water consumed. Receiving a bill creates more incentive to reduce water loss than paying city taxes once a year. There should be a special tariff for agriculture and program implemented to conserve their water use. Because of climate change, more emphasis should be put at protecting aquifers and watershed and reforestation should be part of water system protection. The use of native trees of different varieties should be encourage and native flora should be selected over non-native varieties. Only reducing water usage devices should be sold in hardware store. Rain water should be collected by everyone. Storm sewer water should be sent to water treatment plant and recycled.
These are suggestion that already exist and I know that you are aware of all of these suggestions. What is missing is the political will to make changes. If you want peoples attitude to change so that less water is wasted, use popular media to advertise education programs. Start campaining in school.
you could make a start by protecting the Kettle River, one of the most endangered in BC, by not drawing water away from it to Big White.
Its great to see the process begin for updating the Water Act and, hopefully, implementing the changes and achieving the vision identified in the Living Water Smart plan. I hope we get there; if we do, future generations of British Columbians will thank you.
1)Water allocated to Agriculture must remain in the Agriculture Industry and not transferred to non-agricultural uses.
2)Water reductions in Agriculture, due to drought, need to be on a percentage of allocation basis and not on a reduction of allocation basis.
3)Any reductions in water use in Agriculture must be issued by the Provincial Government and not by local government or purveyors.
This exciting process is certainly due. We owe ourselves this one. thanks stu
I applaud this initiative and look forward to some meaningful dialogue on water issues in BC.
Congratulations on your blog launch!
It is exciting to see this process beginning. Here in the Okanagan we can’t take our water for granted and it is great to see that the Province is moving forward with legislative changes to protect the resource.