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 policy directions of the modernization of the Water Act are very relevant especially given the rise in population and increased demand for clean water. Regulating ground water use is essential and was greatly lacking in any current legislation. I agree with the other policy directions regarding regulation during scarcity, the increase in water use efficiency and conservation and measuring and reporting, so long they are managed in such a way as not to compromise the agriculture industry. They are good steps towards the goal of Living Water Smart. However, without the proper education, funding and enforcement any achievements arising from the extensive consultations and incorporation of ideas into the act, will be purposeless. This process and reform of the Water Act, mirrors that of the development of the Forest and Range Practices Act from the old Forest Code. And although there have been great successes with this new results and area based process, there are still many violations occurring from a lack of due diligence or understanding on the part of the Professionals and a serious absence of monitoring and enforcement from Compliance and Enforcement in this province. If the new water act imposes stricter and area specific objectives, there is no guarantee that any measures will be achieved without the proper funding for enforcement, the issuing of violations and follow up from C&E. As another unpopular item, if the province wants to make a really concerted effort to manage BC’s water resources, they have to include the public and municipalities into the equation. Although not popular, I think that all houses in BC should have water meters and water use should be a pay for use service. The most effective way to get a message across to people is though their bank accounts. Also when all houses are metered, municipalities can start to grasp how much water they lose a year though leaky infrastructure and can begin to target and upgrade water systems effectively.
I totally agree that the government needs to take a stand and make our water a priority, our ground water is running out.
The bible predicts that we will be out of clean water at the end of the world.
In the end, the Government and the big industries will be hoarding all the water, regulations will be made, and money will have to be paid to consume water.
Government will make demands and regulations that the small consumers will not be able to meet.
Here is a slideshow that will be of interest.
A Tsilhqot’in Treasure of Mountains, Rivers and Lakes
vimeo.com/13704214
The idea for Agricultural Water Reserves (AWRs) raises many questions and concerns that will need to be addressed. I would like to know more about the following.
• Will AWRs be area based and separate from ALR areas?
• Where will this area come from if so?
• Would entire watersheds be considered AWRs?
• How will AWRs affect forestry and other industries that operate near or around existing ALR?
• How will these areas be regulated?
• Will recreational activities be limited or even forbidden in theses area?
The time for a new water act is now due to the significant pressure applied to BC’s water systems mainly from population growth and development. Industry and climate change also pose a challenge to managing our water. The new sustainable water act proposal focuses on what I see to be the key principles that should be in the water act. These are as follows:
• Maintaining a steady water supply
• Maintaining water quality
• Human health and safety
• Ecosystem health and watershed integrity
• Economic development
The concept of managing water on an area based approach is critical as the water issues in Kelowna are much different than water issues in Haida Gwaii for example. The water act should be flexible enough to deal with BC’s very diverse climate while still promoting the key principles listed above on a provincial scale. Legislation and regulations should be introduced cautiously at first as to not strangle business and discourage development, but to eventually wean operators off of poor practices and provide financial incentives to switch to new best practices. A difficult task will be determining who has priority rights to the water during times of scarcity and it should be something like critical stakeholders first such as communities for human consumption and Agriculture for food production and livestock then less critical stakeholders second such as golf courses and water parks as an example. Lastly some funding should be provided for research of BC’s water inventory to determine what volume of fresh water there is in lakes, rivers, ground water ect… and what is a sustainable volume of water to be consuming This should be done on a landscape level and the area based approach could be applied to each landscape model.
As one who depends on water not only for life but also for my livelihood I feel compelled to make a few statements. As with most ranchers I’ll keep it short and to the point.
Let us all remember that without water we cease to exist. It is necessary not only for consumption but everything we eat requires water as well.
Even though we live in a resource rich province we could conceivably live a very simplistic lifestyle free from the use of fossil fuels, lumber, minerals etc. however water is something of an essential.
As such, our government must realize that because the water of this province belongs to the people of B.C., exporting it for any reason to anyone outside of B.C.is completely unacceptable especially given the climate changes we are seeing in recent years. eg. increased drought conditions, receding glaciers,decreased fiver flow rates.
Measuring and reporting water usage is another area where caution must be excercised – many ideas that sound good in theory are not so easily implemented and can cause financial ruin for small businesses that are already dealing with numerous economic challenges.
Modernizing the water act is not something totally unnecessary, however let us ensure that wise thinking and common sense previal. Let’s keep from making it another complex, restrictive piece of legislation that only benefits large businesses and wealthy industry stakeholders while placing yet another burden on the average tax payer.
As a voice for farmers and ranchers from across this province I truly hope that modernizing the Water Act will not compromise our positon to accomplish our passion and goal in life: providing the people of B.C. with top quality, safe food that is unequalled by those products which come to us from across the border or other destinations worldwide.
I think it’s great that we’re finally promising legal protections for environmental flow of water. My only fear is that we should not allow water to become a commodity, where a few have a lot to gain but the remainder suffer (i.e. the public and the environment, which is exactly what this new proposed Act is there to protect).
Whatever systems are put into place ,we the public through the govt. must remain the owners of all the water– never should we give exclusive use with the right to outright ownership any of our water resources. The Govt. must remain in control of our water. Giving ownership of our water to large corporations or others does not make any economic sense. We the Govt. will then never be able to charge a fee for water use – the big company owner will make the profit.
BC’s Water Act ‘modernization” just turns our water rights into a commodity in the marketplace owned by those who hold the title to be bought and sold according to their wants or whims. No government will be able to alter this once water becomes a privately managed possession. Is this government trying to relieve itself of the responsibility of managing the public trust for the people? Is it easier to sell everything off as an item to be bought and sold and let the ‘market forces’ govern it’s use? If not then this type of legislation doesn’t belong in BC’s water act. You can be rest assured that the people of British Columbia or Canada for that matter, do want the their water sold to traders. This is corruption of the highest order. What resource could be more inportant than water?
• I just checked out the video with the 7 pillars of the new strategy and the map of BC – three colours, green, blue and orange.
Wondering why the West Coast of Vancouver Island is not shown as an orange zone – they have significant water issues there in the summer – they have to truck water in for drinking and cooking. Tourism is affected and the residents have serious and valid on-going concerns. This issue has been prominent in the news for the last two summers.
*Pasted below is a letter from the BC First Nations Leadership Council (BC Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit and Union of BC Indian Chiefs) with comments on the current phase of the Water Act Modernization process, the policy directions for the proposed Water Sustainability Act*
March 9, 2011
Honourable Murray Coell
Minister of Environment
PO Box 9047, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
Honourable John Slater
Parliamentary Secretary for Water Supply and Allocation
East Annex, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4
Dear Minister Coell and Mr. Slater,
We are writing in follow-up to Minister Coell’s meeting with the First Nations Leadership Council (First Nations Summit, Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Assembly of First Nations), as represented by Grand Chief Edward John and Chief Bob Chamberlain, on February 25th, to discuss the current provincial Water Act modernization (WAM) process. We welcome the opportunity to engage at this high level on this important and urgent matter.
We wish to reiterate our proposal that we enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to help move dialogue forward on the range of issues in an appropriate and comprehensive way, including convening a Water Forum to bring First Nations and the provincial government together for discussion. It is imperative that the Province engage with First Nations meaningfully before proceeding with its current process.
To underscore this, we set out in greater detail some of our serious concerns and objections regarding the current WAM process and the policy directions being proposed for the new Water Sustainability Act (WSA) (the “Policy Proposal”). Specifically, we are disappointed that the Policy Proposal does not clearly incorporate First Nations input from May 2010 formal submissions, either generally or in the seven proposed policy directions for the WSA. Further, we continue to contest the general process and lack of appropriate and meaningful consultation on a government-to-government basis with First Nations in British Columbia, as required by law and committed to in the New Relationship.
Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights are held at the Nation level, and each Nation has authority to make decisions about their lands and resources to address the unique circumstances of their particular Nation. As such, the Province has a duty to consult directly with the Nations on proposed decisions, including strategic level decisions. The current provincial process is a generic public process with no distinct or government-to-government engagement with First Nations that will be affected by any new water legislation.
The BC Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs are separate province-wide, political organizations that politically advocate for First Nations in British Columbia through their respective mandates. The First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) is a collaborative political working partnership among our three organizations, with the aim of advancing the interests of First Nations in British Columbia.
1. Failure of Policy Directions to Incorporate First Nations’ Input
In the context set out above, our organizations each made submissions to the Ministry of Environment in response to the WAM Discussion Paper, in addition to 13 other First Nations submissions from a variety of groups. While each submission highlighted unique viewpoints and concerns, there were several common threads throughout. Some of these concerns are included in the Report on Engagement; however, we feel that they were unjustly “softened” and were not adequately incorporated into the proposed policy directions. Below are some of the key points in this regard.
• First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal Title, Rights, and Treaty Rights, and object to provincial assertion of jurisdiction over water. This is noted in the Ministry of Environment’s Report on Engagement and the introduction to the Policy Proposal states that, “For greater certainty, the provisions of the new Act are intended to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in a manner consistent with the Constitution Act of Canada.” However, this does not acknowledge that there remains an outstanding requirement in BC for reconciliation of existing Aboriginal rights, including title, with the assertion of Crown jurisdiction. Instead, the policy directions for the WSA continue to assert provincial jurisdiction over water, including groundwater. Aboriginal rights, including title, are protected under section 35 and the provincial Crown does not enjoy full beneficial interest in the lands and resources. This matter remains largely outstanding in BC and any legislative and policy reform must reflect this reality.
• First Nations seek a more appropriate and inclusive government-to-government process for engagement in the WAM process. First Nation submissions on the WAM Discussion Paper were clear that greater and more meaningful engagement with First Nations – consistent with jurisprudence and the Province’s commitments in the New Relationship – is necessary, and that three First Nation-specific “workshops” on the WAM Discussion Paper were woefully inadequate. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment has been unresponsive to these requests and has implemented an even less meaningful process for engaging with First Nations through its current “blog” process, with no in-person or government-to-government engagement sessions. It is necessary to distinguish between those entities with governance/stewardship responsibilities (First Nations and other governments) and those of users (industry) and interest groups (non-government organizations). First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, which give rise to a right to make decisions about the land and resources.
• As Indigenous Peoples, we are intimately connected to our waters and water resources and we have a inherent and sacred stewardship responsibility to responsibly manage and protect our waters. The Report on Engagement recognizes that water is of high spiritual and economic value to First Nations; however, the Policy Proposal does not recognize the inherent self-determination of First Nations over our water and water resources. The Province cannot implement water governance without working with First Nations on an inter-governmental basis. Because of our existing Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, our perspectives, interests and conceptions of stewardship must inform the development of any water policy and legislative/regulatory regime in BC. For example, it is crucial that First Nations be involved in decision-making processes over water allocation. Both the FNS and UBCIC submissions note that water allocation necessitates strategic level decision-making that considers and determines applications for use and diversion of water. Because these decisions have potential to impact on Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, First Nations must be engaged directly on water allocation. The Policy Proposal does not clearly address water allocation in light of existing Aboriginal title and rights.
• The WAM Process must be carried out in the spirit of the New Relationship. The Report on Engagement notes this common message from First Nations; however, the Policy Proposal, and the process leading up to it, does not reflect the New Relationship at all. First Nations engaged in the New Relationship with the Province of BC in 2005 when the Premier acknowledged that the Province’s unilateral development of a consultation policy had failed (as illustrated by Haida), and that the Province wanted to jointly develop new approaches with First Nation. Our agreed common vision in the New Relationship anticipated systemic changes, and we agreed to a “new government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition, and accommodation of Aboriginal title and rights.” The Policy Proposal does not currently reflect such a new relationship. Rather, it perpetuates long-standing, systemic problems in the relationship – in particular, the assertion of provincial jurisdiction where reconciliation remains largely outstanding through court decisions, treaties or other agreements. We remain committed to our New Relationship vision and goals and urge the Province once again to re-engage at a high level so that we may work collaboratively on these critical issues and maximize opportunities before us.
2. General Responses to Policy Directions of WSA
The Province must engage First Nations directly in a meaningful process and on a government-to-government basis in legislative and policy reform regarding water and water governance, as it is the First Nations themselves who hold constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. Further to this direct engagement with First Nations, we offer the following general responses to the draft policy directions set out in the Policy Proposal:
• “Protect Stream Health and Aquatic Environments”- Rules and standards for protecting stream health and aquatic environments must be developed with First Nations and must reflect that there are constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, in BC which give rise to First Nations governance and decision-making with regard to the lands and resources in their territories, based on their traditional knowledge. We contest any attempt to unilaterally impose provincial standards. Given the potential implications and importance of this matter, the draft policy direction is far too vague to be able to provide further specific comments.
• “Consider Water in Land-Use Decisions”- The Crown has a legal duty to engage First Nations at the strategic level through to the operational level as decisions can be made at each of these levels that can potentially impact Aboriginal title or rights, or treaty rights. A primary feature of the New Relationship is to ensure this appropriate level of inter-governmental engagement on issues of mutual interest and concern including, specifically, land and resource use planning, management and decision-making. Strategic level engagement includes development/revision of legislation and policy, and management tools. It is useful to highlight some of the direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on the need for strategic level decisions – not only because of the potential for impacts from a single decision, but also because there exists potential for cumulative impacts from incremental strategic decisions:
I conclude that the Province has a duty to consult and perhaps accommodate on T.F.L. decisions. The T.F.L. decision reflects the strategic planning for utilization of the resource. Decisions made during strategic planning may have potentially serious impacts on Aboriginal right and title. The holder of T.F.L. 39 must submit a management plan to the Chief Forester every five years, to include inventories of the licence area’s resources, a timber supply analysis, and a “20-Year Plan” setting out a hypothetical sequence of cutblocks. The inventories and the timber supply analysis form the basis of the determination of the allowable annual cut (“A.A.C.”) for the licence. The licensee thus develops the technical information based upon which the A.A.C. is calculated. Consultation at the operational level thus has little effect on the quantity of the annual allowable cut, which in turn determines cutting permit terms. If consultation is to be meaningful, it must take place at the stage of granting or renewing Tree Farm Licences. The last issue is whether the Crown’s duty went beyond consultation on T.F.L. decisions, to accommodation. We cannot know, on the facts here, whether consultation would have led to a need for accommodation. However, the strength of the case for both the Haida title and the Haida right to harvest red cedar, coupled with the serious impact of incremental strategic decisions on those interests, suggest that the honour of the Crown may well require significant accommodation to preserve the Haida interest pending resolution of their claims. (Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004 SCC 73 at paras 76-77) (emphasis added)
In the context of water, this raises the issue of how the proposed “Provincial Water Objectives (PWOs)” will be determined that will purportedly be used to guide decisions under the WSA? We must endeavour to avoid the conflicts that have arisen through past unilateral strategic decision-making by the Province, as with the setting of the AAC. We must work jointly to design, develop and implement a water management regime. In this regard, we remind you of the specific political commitments in the New Relationship, aimed at a truly “new” relationship, where we agreed to:
Develop new institutions or structures to negotiate Government-to-Government Agreements for shared decision-making regarding land use planning, management, tenuring and resource revenue and benefit sharing; and
Identify institutional, legislative and policy changes to implement this vision and these action items;
Fundamentally, these commitments must include strategic level issues on key resources, such as water, as has been consistently and clearly conveyed by our organizations and First Nations in relation to the WAM process. The Policy Proposal is currently vague on the issue of water consideration in land use decisions, but raises numerous important issues and concerns for First Nations given the Province’s approach to land use and resource planning to date. Early government-to-government engagement on a new water regime will help to create stability and certainty, thereby reducing the potential for conflict.
• “Regulate Groundwater Use”- Groundwater is of great importance to First Nations. Because most groundwater eventually flows into surface waters, First Nations have huge interest in the management groundwater. As is clear, a lack of, or inadequate, regulations and management tools leads to serious issues such as depletion and contamination, which has direct impacts on other resources, our people and our communities. This is an area requiring urgent attention and policy change. However, we oppose the provincial assertion in the Policy Proposal that it will automatically be the body to regulate and control access to groundwater, without mention of or regard to Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, to water. We are also extremely concerned that the Province is considering providing access to a third party in this way. The textbox on p.9 of the Policy Proposal notes that “Many First Nations communities rely on groundwater and will be impacted by groundwater regulation,” yet there is no reference to, or recognition, of our Aboriginal rights or treaty rights.
• “Regulate During Scarcity”- Conservation and sustainability are important principles. However, to advance and achieve them, the Province must work closely and jointly with First Nations as they have valuable traditional knowledge that will greatly inform and help shape this dialogue. The policy direction, as currently outlined, does not include any mention of First Nations at all.
• “Improve Security, Water Use Efficiency, and Conservation”- Any economic instruments that will be enabled as incentives for improving water use efficiency must be jointly developed with First Nations and must reflect the reality of our existing Aboriginal title, rights, and treaty rights. We are extremely concerned with the vague reference to “tradable permits” and “water markets” on p.11 of the Policy Proposal. We object to the commodification of our water by the Province. The Province has a duty to engage in meaningful discussion with First Nations on any such concept, as well as the proposed Agricultural Water Reserves. These concepts, as currently referenced, are vague, yet have potentially huge implications with respect to our Aboriginal title and rights, treaty rights, and interests.
• “Measure and Report”- First Nations successfully maintained the health of our water for thousands of years prior to contact with European settlers. We agree that measuring and reporting water use is critical to maintaining water health and availability. Measuring and reporting standards must be developed in partnership with First Nations to ensure our traditional knowledge is appropriately incorporated.
• “Enable a Range of Governance Approaches”- Water governance is incredibly complex. The general intent of “updating” water governance is a necessary step as it provides an opportunity to ensure water governance is more appropriately contextualized and reflective of the changing legal and political landscape. As noted by Grand Chief Ed John, “the key to establishing better water governance structure is “recognition and implementation of Aboriginal title and rights, negotiating solutions to public policy challenges directly with First Nations on a government-to-government basis, and developing legislation and regulations in collaboration with First Nations.” We all seek less conflict and more certainty. We note that the textbox on p. 13 states that “Aboriginal rights and title must be resolved.” This is misleading – it is not our Aboriginal title and rights that must “be resolved”; rather, what is required is the reconciliation of our pre-existing Aboriginal title and rights with the assertion of Crown jurisdiction. Again, the Constitution Act makes clear that the Province does not enjoy full beneficial ownership of the lands and resources. In this context, we strongly object to the Province asserting full jurisdiction and that it may delegate governance authority to third parties. Government-to-government processes and institutions for water governance are first required with First Nations as a priority.
3. Objections to WAM “Process”
• Engagement with First Nations must be meaningful and in accordance with contemporary case law including the Haida (2004) and Kwikwetlen (2009) decisions. Where the Crown is considering an action or decision with the potential of infringement on Aboriginal title and rights, its duty to consult is triggered. In this case, the Crown is considering a new legislative and policy framework for all water in BC, which absolutely has the potential to impact and infringe Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. While we appreciate that there is a public process for input into the Water Act Modernization, which the Province is required to do, it is also required to engage directly with First Nations who are the holders of Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. As the Report on Engagement notes, there is a risk of legal action if the province does not fulfill its legal obligations.
• Timelines have not been adequate for meaningful dialogue and do not constitute consultation with First Nations. Further to an inadequate and inappropriate process with First Nations, the Province set out impossibly short timeframes for its WAM process and did not provide capacity funding to help enable and assist First Nations to engage. In the current phase of the engagement process, Chiefs and Council received a letter and copy of the Policy Proposal on December 17, 2010, immediately prior to Christmas break, and were asked to provide comment by February 21, 2011 to respond. First Nations and First Nations organizations experience serious capacity limitations, which must be recognized and addressed by the Crown when it seeks to engage First Nations.
• Engagement via a “blog” is an exclusionary use of technology and has resulted in an unorganized record of input that minimizes the serious nature of revising the Water Act. Many First Nations do not have regular access to the internet (e.g. due to remoteness) and, so, would not be in a position to access the Living Water Smart Blog in a regular or meaningful way. People with significant knowledge and experience with our water, including Elders, might not have the technical knowledge, understanding or skill to use a blog. Additionally, there is no clear organization to the blog, making it difficult to search or analyze information or submissions. The Water Act is the major piece of legislation for all water in BC and we feel that the blog is an extremely poor form of engagement, particularly as the primary vehicle for engagement and given that the flow chart of the WAM process on p. 4 of the Policy Proposal implies that this is the last opportunity to have input into the process.
We note that a high percentage of blog posts object both to the current WAM process, as well as content of the current Policy Proposal, and that a common theme among the posts is that the Policy Proposal is much too vague to be able to adequately provide comment. Additionally we are unclear how the “What we heard” text boxes in the Policy Proposal are intended to be addressed or if they are going to be incorporated in some way into the proposed WSA.
The current process fails to constitute appropriate and meaningful consultation with First Nations and fails to live up to the commitments made by the Province in the New Relationship where we intended new, bold and innovative approaches and new government-to-government relationships. We call on the Province to demonstrate its continued commitment to the New Relationship and, again, propose a Memorandum of Understanding between us to move dialogue forward between the Province and First Nations.
In closing, we sincerely hope that we can work together to determine appropriate approaches for a government-to-government relationship regarding water and water governance.
We look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL (original signed)
On behalf of the FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT:
Grand Chief Edward John
Chief Douglas White III Kwulasultun
Dan Smith
On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Chief Marilyn Baptiste
On behalf of the BC ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS:
Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould
I do not agree with this policy.. water should be left alone, not sold, not bottled.. haven’t we done enough to squelch and exploit natural resources.
If you state “Water is essential to all British Columbians and our environment.” Then this ‘Water Act’ should not include components , such as its water privatization (‘water markets’) and de-regulation of ‘environmental flows’ measures.
If it is the B.C. government’s plan to keep our water healthy and secure for the future. Then this proposed Water Sustainability Act should NOT gut strong legal protections for environmental flows and replace them with ‘guidelines’ that merely have to be ‘considered’ when water is being taken from a river/stream.
If this government goal is to respond and adapt to climate change while ensuring we do not compromise nature’s needs. Then why create a “Water Sustainablity” documet that opens the door to corporations linked with OUR government being gifted with OUR water and the power to sell it to the highest bidder?
If your goals are as stated above then rewrite this document to affirm public, democratic control over water and build in support for rigorous environmental protections for water that are based on the needs of the eco-system and all water users.
RE: University of Victoria’s POLIS WSP Submission in Response to the Government’s “Policy Proposal on British Columbia’s new Water Sustainability Act” (December 2010)
The full submission and further details are available at:
http://poliswaterproject.org/publication/391
We commend Government on its effort to engage the broader public in a robust process to modernize the BC Water Act. The recent government policy position paper offers insight into potential priorities of a new Water Sustainability Act and is a welcome addition to the ongoing dialogue. The proposal captures important central themes and some promising new directions discussed during the recent Water Act Modernization engagement process. Overall, there is clear progress in a number of areas including:
• groundwater regulation and licensing;
• attention to environmental flows;
• use of economic instruments and “beneficial use” provisions to achieve efficiency gains;
• monitoring and reporting requirements; and
• the development of new tools and processes such as “provincial water objectives” and “area based decision-making.”
Concerns and Priorities Going Forward
A number of the identified policy priorities remain questionable or poorly developed. Specifically, the problematic reference to water markets and backsliding on water use reporting requirements need to be clarified.
If the desired outcome of a modern Water Sustainability Act is to be achieved , four unresolved core issues remain. Each requires further development and clear commitments.
Unresolved Core Issues:
1. The priority of environmental flows over other non-essential human uses, and the need for clear binding and legally enforceable rules, as opposed to guidelines.
2. An allocation system that embeds the public trust to build resilience and avoid conflict.
3. Commitment to shared watershed governance to ensure those who are affected have a say in relevant decisions. Support of co-governance and substantive local participation on key water (and other resource) decisions must be enabled.
4. Accountability and oversight to provide British Columbians with transparency and confidence that what is promised will be done.
Next Steps in a Credible Process
It is imperative that government maintains the high standard of transparent and meaningful engagement that has been established in the WAM process to date. Public dialogue must continue as the Water Sustainability Act policy proposal is further developed. In particular, a formal commitment to offering an opportunity for public comment on draft legislation will help ensure the process remains credible. This opportunity will build confidence that the Province is indeed committed to a new approach to water management and is transparent in its efforts to ensure the protection of fresh water in British Columbia, now and into the future.
Water: A Clear Priority for British Columbians
Strong recognition exists that fresh water is a key strategic resource, and a crucial foundation to the economy and the environment; good, clean, and abundant fresh water is fundamental to community prosperity, human health, watershed function and quality of life throughout British Columbia.
A recent, major survey by McAllister Opinion Research examined the attitude of British Columbians toward water. With nearly unanimous support for updating and improving water management and governance in the province, the results of the poll confirmed the priority and importance of water to the average resident. Recent reports by the Auditor General (on the heels of a number of leading research and expert analysis) further reinforce the need for significant systematic reform. Reforming the Water Act is a critical first step to attaining the broad vision for a new paradigm of water management as committed to in the Living Water Smart Plan.
On behalf of the Water Sustainability Team at the University of Victoria’s POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, I look forward to supporting this process as it continues, and seeing further progress and ongoing engagement on this crucial issue.
As the new WSA legislation is developed, i urge the government to incorporate values and solutions that are in the public interest, where water is treated as a “Commons”, not a commodity. Such an approach ensures that access to water is a human right; pricing for public use remains low, and terms of water licenses are issued in perpetuity. The goal of water management is equality and conservation, not profit.
Our household water source is a small creek, where we maintain our own system and ensure that it is free from contamination: no cost to the government; we pay our water license to ensure our right to use this pure fresh water, and vigorously opposed road building and timber extraction in the watershed where the water collects above us, with mixed results. I want to see watershed protection also enshrined in this new legislation so that small owner maintained systems can continue.
The concept to be embraced in all water decisions is protection of water ecosystems, water sheds and in-stream needs and biodiversity. If we think in the concept of protecting this valuable, life giving element for the future seven generations, I believe governments can make wise choices.
Bottled water licences are not a wise choice. Make public water systems safe and bottled water is not needed. The horrific plastic pollution from the plastic bottles is a pall on our intelligence.
We should not allow water extraction from Bute Inlet.
The World NEEDS only a small fraction of the water we bottle.
We need to SHRINK our economy, not grow it.
Do economists know HOW to shrink an economy and keep it stable?
As it reads now, the “modernization” of the BC Water Act pays lip service to protecting the environment and the public interest while delivering the goods to the large corporate interests that have long dominated the Province.
The Water Sustainability Act does not include “WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT” and does not appear to provide legal protection for environmental flows, nor does it state “WATER AS A COMMONS”.
Entrenching the Public Trust and focusing on a system that protecgts watershed function and ensures water for basic human needs as a priority with users sharing the shortages during times of drought.
The Act needs to declare water as a Human Right and a commons with decisions about it being collective rather than economic.
**EDIT – Policy Proposal on British Columbia’s New Water Sustainability Act
A Comment by Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Last month the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released a document titled “Policy Proposal on British Columbia’s New Water Sustainability Act”. MOE invited comment on this Policy Proposal starting January 2011. Staff will then present final legislative options to government, government will decide on the direction for the new water law, and the process of drafting legislation will begin. The Water Sustainability Act for BC is expected to be introduced into the legislature in 2012.
This brief reviews the Policy Proposal.
I. Overview
No one disputes that the Water Act is long overdue for reform. The inclusion of ‘sustainability’ in the title of the proposed new Act reveals a welcome change in the way water could be viewed. The hoped-for emphasis on water sustainability recognizes that humans are not the only users of water, but that nature itself requires good quality abundant water. However, the Proposal is relatively short, and while it offers some insight into how a new Act will work, it remains unacceptably vague on some key issues, such as water governance.
The proposal sets out three levels of action:
– new requirements that will apply province-wide,
– discretionary strategies for known problem areas, and
– recovery action for chronic problem areas.
This area-based approach helps clarify where additional government resources and activities will be concentrated.
The Proposal lists seven Policy Directions:
1. Protect stream health and aquatic environments *
2. Consider water in land-use decisions
3. Regulate groundwater use *
4. Regulate during scarcity
5. Improve security, water use efficiency and conservation *
6. Measure and report, and
7. Enable a range of governance approaches. *
This list expands the previous four themes of Water Act Modernization
(original noted by * above). The added Policy Directions are encouraging directions. Of the four previous themes, the most detail is provided on stream health and groundwater regulation. Nevertheless, more detail is still required for both. Improving allocation has been expanded in two directions: regulating during scarcity; and improving security, efficiency and conservation. The least developed section in the Proposal relates to water governance, which is surprising as the province has perhaps done the most work on governance reform: MOE commissioned two detailed background reports and held a round of four workshops around the province on this topic before the WAM process began.
II. New Policy Directions
The sections below provide a preliminary review of the merits and demerits of each of the new policy directions.
1. Protect stream health and aquatic environments
The government proposes to consider instream flow guidelines in new licence applications for both surface and groundwater.
Though this is a step forward, the limitation of instream flow considerations to new licences alone is an apparent problem, as it fails to address the existing 44,000 water licences which are currently in effect in the province, and are currently causing impacts—sometimes severe—to instream flows in many locations.
And the Proposal notes that while there was wide support for standards, the government has apparently decided to instead use guidelines for the purpose of instream flow protection, without providing justification for this decision, or giving due consideration to the general inadequacy of guidelines in regulating resource extraction. The proposal states that when the instream flow needs (IFN) guidelines are incorporated into licence requirements, they will be enforceable. However, it also appears that decision makers on water use will also have the discretion whether or not to place IFN terms into water licences as the proposal states that decision makers will ‘consider’, rather than ‘require protection of’ instream flow needs.
The Proposal also lists some of the drawbacks to greater protection of IFN: additional water storage infrastructure may be required in some areas to ensure flow maintenance throughout the year, and some licencees may face regulatory action to reduce their water use during times of scarcity. Though there will be impacts on existing and future water users, the benefits to fish, wildlife and ecosystems that depend on sufficient water flow at the right time are not given equal or greater emphasis in the proposal.
Changing thermal conditions, intensified by instream flow reduction was found to be a major environmental factor responsible for adult sockeye salmon mortality. It is therefore imperative the effects of climate change on instream flow are considered in the WSA for the protection of fish and wildlife.
2. Consider water in land-use decisions
The Proposal discloses that new Provincial Water Objectives (PWOs) will guide decision makers considering land and resource uses. The PWOs will focus on issues such as access to water, conflicts between and among users, protecting flows and ecosystem health, and cumulative impacts.
This is a significant new commitment. Recognizing the impacts of land use decisions on water, and potentially restricting land and resource development if the impacts on water are unacceptable, could be a valuable new tool. Objectives that must be considered by a range of decision-makers, not just water regulators, is also indicative of a more integrated approach to resource management.
3. Regulate groundwater use
The groundwater regulation section in the Proposal provides the most comfort to those concerned about the outdated state of BC’s water regulations.
Not only will large new withdrawals be subject to licencing, even smaller users in known and chronic problem areas (which could include Langley, the Okanagan Basin, and the Gulf Islands) will be regulated. The Proposal notes that the public expressed strong support for regulating groundwater during the first round of consultations.
While the focus on large users and chronic problem areas is a logical way to prioritize, concerns remain that such regulation will address problems only after they have occurred rather than preventing the problem from occurring.
4. Regulate during scarcity
This direction is linked to the next one. The direction recognizes the growing reality of water shortages in BC, especially in the summer and early fall when water is most needed for agricultural use, fish spawning, and some domestic uses. Water shortages will almost certainly increase in BC as the climate continues to change.
There appears to be no appetite to reform the major allocation principle—and flaw—of BC water law: first-in-time, first-in-right (FITFIR), which means that the oldest water licences have greater water security than any newer uses. In times of scarcity, the newest licenced water use on a particular stream will be curtailed first. This system has been roundly criticized as being inequitable and environmentally unfriendly.
However, though the Proposal does not mention abolishing FITFIR, it indicates that in the new Act, FITFIR may not be the sole operational principle during times of scarcity. MOE will encourage users to voluntarily reduce water use first. Then proportional reductions for all users may be imposed. If those two solutions don’t work, then cutbacks will be imposed based on the priority date of the water licence, unless other exceptional circumstances exist.
5. Improve security, water use efficiency and conservation
If the new Act is to deserve its name of ‘water sustainability’, adding this set of new water regulation tools to the kit is essential. The current Act focuses on the distribution of water rights, without placing obligations on users to be efficient, or to conserve, and these proposed additions would change this undesirable situation.
The Proposal lists three new areas for improved water security, efficiency and conservation.
First, the new Act will enable a range of economic instruments such as higher or differential fees, rebates, and tradable permits. Though the proposal states that the public comments supported these instruments, it is doubtful that many environmentalists support water markets as a method to return water to the environment. Alberta’s experience with tradable water licences has not to date resulted in more water for environmental flows or other ecosystem uses. On the other hand, block pricing is a good way to encourage more efficient use. More detail on how new economic instruments will be used is needed.
Second, the proposal to improve water efficiency through a number of methods is promising. As West Coast Environmental Law pointed out, incorporating water use efficiency into the definition of beneficial use improves the status quo.
Third, the proposed creation of Agricultural Water Reserves is a valuable complement to agricultural land reserves.
6. Measure and report
Modern water laws require users to report on their use. This new direction will be a big improvement over the status quo. Some water users are now required to report on actual use, as opposed to the amount licensed for use. Expansion of reporting requirements will help the government manage the variable conditions of the resource.
7. Enable a range of governance approaches
This direction is the weakest in the Proposal. Though the title states that the new Act will enable a range of governance approaches, in fact there are already a wide range of water governance arrangements in effect in BC. The problem in the existing Water Act is not a lack of authority to enable new governance structures; it is the lack of mandatory provisions requiring the formation of multigovernment and perhaps multisectoral bodies in those watersheds experiencing high water stress, and the lack of answers to fundamental questions about new water governance bodies: Who must participate? Where should they be formed? What will they do? When will they do it? And how? In other words, will mandatory, timebound, enforceable water or watershed management plans be required throughout the province, or in particular areas of the province, and will the new Water Sustainability Act direct this to occur?
Two of the most recent governance innovations have not yet been tested. One, the drinking water protection plan, has not been used and will in all likelihood not be used in the near future barring a water quality emergency. The other, the water management plan, has been developed in one pilot project for the Township of Langley, though Cabinet has yet to approve the final WMP. Arguably, this plan is a failure, unless it is rejected by Cabinet and sent back to the community for revision, as the measures proposed by the plan will fall short of actions required to reverse the groundwater declines which have increased over the past twenty years.
III. Next Steps
More information on governance reform, justification for the decision to pursue guidelines rather than standards for instream flow protection, water markets, and other topics are needed before the overall merits of the proposed Water Sustainability Act can be thoroughly evaluated, though this Proposal, like Living Water Smart and the first WAM Discussion Paper, are all evidence of a more environmentally conscious regime for regulating and managing water in BC.
As stake holder and many centuries ago merited a first nations label, but now dismissed as just a member of the public,
I have a well that was commissioned, paid for,by the dwelling owner and now maintained and tested by myself, I also exercise conservancy measures allowing my ornimental grass to fry in the heat, not pampering it with gallons of precious water, accepting that orange grass is good.
all I see is another act of government sponsered legal piracy of my access to water, from a department that will not have the resourses to take on the responsibilies,that I now exercise on my with care for myself and for society, I accept we need the ability to control abuses, these proposals do not appear to do just that.
Like all cash starved quangoes they spend far too much time making reports and devising more institutional controls, that are devised to milk us cash cows, all in the name of being our saviour the cash cow.
Just remember you can bancrupt that cash cow
The BC Water Act is not a place where private enterprises, “water markets” or any sale of water licenses should be considered. As an essential need for all life, water should be available to all for basic needs. When projects such as bottled water companies request withdrawals, the individual applications must be reviewed within the regional picture. An example of this is the 40 or more streams in the Jervis, Toba, Bute and Knight inlets, where many applications for bottled water withdrawal (approximately 112,000 litres a day, requires an environmental assessment, to understand the regional impact. In the new Water Act, the people of British Columbia need to be enabled to manage and protect water and related ecosystems in an environmentally sound way.
The initiative to modernization the Water Act is highly commendable. It is hoped BC Government’s intent is to listen to the concerns of those commenting, particularly regarding improved measures of water supply data, to ensure the implementation of equitable land-use restrictions can be developed. All water use needs to be examined in perspective of its “conflict with the environment”. There currently seems to be a focus on public and downplaying of resource extraction water use.
There are questions arising through experience in the watersheds of our region (Cariboo). First, there are definite concerns regarding stream flow levels. Having worked on studies on salmon, we know the fluctuation of water levels are having catastrophic effects on the fry sheltering in these tributaries of the Fraser. When addressing these concerns our Society volunteers found the related Ministry departments were severely understaffed, lacking funding/jurisdiction . with the nearest staff being in an office 300 km away. We believe there should be strong legal protections for environmental flows and not optional ‘guidelines’ when someone wants to take water from a stream
Concerns regarding the mapped red/blue/green areas: living in a ‘green’ lower population area, we deal with water issues different to the lower-mainland/urban areas: cattle grazing, forest fires, mining and logging roads all have high impacts on watersheds and use huge amounts of water, mostly unmonitored. In our region the 100,000 km of ‘bush’ roads are the source of a very high percentage of stream degradation. Improved regulations must be developed, enforced and maintained to assure a reversal in this trend. Another issue in the blue area (low population) that could be classified as a ‘red’ was the recent low flows in the rivers and streams around Dawson Creek this past summer. Salmon spawning grounds have also been cut off by dams (i.e. Columbia River, Site C if developed). If we do not have the water supply data how can we develop a system for land-use restrictions that respects the environment?
When a local group of lakeside residents living in our region met with Ministry staff last summer regarding the dropping water levels in the lake, they were told water being removed from their lake by forest fighting water bombers had not been considered. The amount of water taken was considerable for use in dousing the catastrophic fires of the summer of 2010. More due diligence in monitoring (which equates to more staff time and regulations) is needed to truly understand all the drains on water.
Another concern the BC Government began to address February of 2010 was the contamination of water through cosmetic herbicides and pesticides, but as yet no new steps have been announced. Here is an opportunity to reduce practices that cause harmful pollutants (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides) and wastage (i.e. huge lawns, new golf courses, excessive car washing). Bylaws to direct municipalities, industries and the public towards less wasteful practices are needed. The point is how will these changes be undertaken, new staff hired, new stations to monitor flow and enforce levels, grants to City’s to establish monitoring?
We would begin to agree with a new Water Modernization Act which: collected regular, in-depth scientific data (flow rates, water extractions including for forest fires); included water protection regarding resource extraction activities, adequate staffing to implement, monitor and enforce the new regulations; and finally, the funding required to carry this out on a long term basis.
What concerns us is the extensive cutbacks in Ministry staff over the past ten years. The staff were already trying to cover unmanageable work loads. Much of our groundwater concerns are dealt with by staff almost 200 km away.
Finally, our water is a not a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. If meters are put in, extra fines should be given for overuse ‘to a limit’ after which time use should be discontinued.
There are three essentials for life. Air, water and nourishment commonly known as food. Food consists of protein, typically plants, animals and fish. The basic make up of these foods is carbon and water. Historically, man sustained life by being a hunter-gatherer and therefore the essentials of life were dependant on water.
The vast majority of the population now has neither the ability nor the time to pursue the gathering or production of their own food. Enter the Agricultural Industry. Approximately three percent of the population now carries the burden of producing one of the essentials of life for the other ninety-seven percent.
Agriculture is food production, whether it is raising livestock, growing forages to feed this livestock, or raising grains and vegetables for consumption by humans. By restricting water to agriculture, you restrict food production. By removing water from agriculture, you stop food production.
Agricultural water is part of environmental flow!
Ensuring adequate, and good quality drinking water for livestock, and adequate,timely irrigation water for growing crops is no less important than maintaining stream flow for fish.
Whereas water is a natural resource that is an essential component of all life on earth and our Province, there is no substitute for water, and
Whereas the democratically elected authority of each Nation and Province of that nation, is primarily responsible for the welfare of their peoples, and
Whereas to properly manage essential resources it is critical to congregate and properly inventories the entire capacity, replacement and utilization of essential resources
Therefore we must take inventory of all water, wetlands, catchment areas, and flow capacities in our respective jurisdictions and, create a Strategic Freshwater Reserve (S.F.R) similar to (A.L.R) and make it secure from negative urban or commercial development.
The Policy Proposal Document reflects much of the conversation, views and suggestions expressed at the WAM public input workshop. Concepts such as protecting instream flows, competing demands, finding efficiencies, regulating ground water and, especially taking an area based approach in decision making are, simply put, “right on”. My concern is the larger context regarding authority & co-operation within government agencies regarding implementation of the Act. I am also concerned about the use of “formula based” instream flow assessments. Finally, I think we need to look at past & present partnership governance models that work and find ways to expand and bring awareness to them and the value of water conservation.
The impetus for water act modernisation is the fact that our current legislative system is outdated and doesn’t meet our needs. There are at least 3 Ministries involved or responsible for activities that impact water and their mandates don’t give primary priority to water conservation. In addition, co-ordination between ministries regarding water protection is lacking. Obtaining a permit for restoration work on damaged streams is difficult and Ministry staff is stretched. Hence, has little to offer regarding participation in governance models or community processes. For the Water Act to be meaningful, our Government structures, mode of operation and intra agency relations have to improve.
I am also concerned about the policy recommendation to use “formula-based” instream flow measurements for surface water. For decision-makers to have credibility it is essential that measurements be accurate.
I understand the need for efficiencies but using formula based assessments is false economy and why can’t developers bear the costs for collecting accurate data? They certainly stand to gain by their activities.
While we have data to accurately estimate flows on large streams, it is sparse and less accurate to use formula based estimates for flow on small creeks. Also, the majority of the community water systems are on smaller streams, which are most likely to show the impacts from poor land management practices.
We aren’t lacking good models for water governance. I see a great model in the Lake Windermere Project. Here, community groups, govt. agencies, industry and other stakeholders have developed guidelines and water quality objectives for that lake. In the Slocan Valley, we have a similar process for Slocan Lake and a Riparian Restoration Program for the main river. Historically, in the Slocan Valley we monitored over 11 creeks for 6 years under a Ministry sponsored program. In the East Kootenays, the Mark Creek Recovery Project is an example of a community motivated to improve their local water source. Again, the key to success is partnership with active participation by a willing Provincial Government.
As a municipal official, I have had the opportunity, over the years, to be directly involved in addressing water issues that many communities in BC face, in particular during scarcity periods. It was during one of those periods that the current Water Act and its associated policies showed a major weakness, the lack of a priority of use structure.
This is especially difficult in communities that are resource intensive and have to balance the needs of businesses and industry with those of residents, including basic needs such as drinking water.
Cities that have faced these challenges have developed water conservation bylaws, assigning priority of use for the different levels of scarcity. In most cases, it involved regulating watering of lawns and washing cars.
During persistent drought periods and as you progress through the different stages of the conservation bylaw, the decision get more difficult to make. It might now involve closing local businesses such as car washes and commercial water haulers. No Council wants to make that decision, but in extreme cases, that is the reality.
As hard as those decisions are to make, communities are limited to deciding on matters related to and within the community’s water system and not on the watershed as a whole.
In a lot of cases, local governments are just one of the permit holders for a particular watershed. Ranching, forestry, oil and gas exploration and others, also hold permits to extract water from a watershed and each one of those works under a different Act or regulation. In times of scarcity, the lack of coordination/integration of those Acts, more specifically, the lack of “prioritization of use” becomes very evident.
Having raised this issue previously, I was happy to see it recognized in policy direction 4 (regulating during scarcity). As the policy gets further developed, local governments will need to continue to be closely involved in helping define that policy.
Can you tell me what reading the suggested changes… to the Exportation of water act is in…as the Federal act is only in the first reading…. it is a very controversial subject and may take some time to actually get passed.
I am wondering if the changes here in BC that have been made law, or law or are “also” only in the reading stages and at what stage of the six reading stage are they in. Or have they been put in place ahead of them actually being passed as an actual law..??
Just interested..??
so, what are the plans to keep the water healthy and secure? Are the cars a factor in water pollution? Of course they are, all the air emission will go into air or ground and then will go back into the fresh water reservoirs when it’s raining. But I don’t see any air care regulations like the European emission standard. Where are we going to see something similar in Canada too?
I posted comments to you on June 18 and you have not put them on your site as of July 8. All of the facts that I have mentioned can be confirmed on the Environmental Assessment Office website at http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca It is nice to be concerned about running tap water but we are fighting to save the watershed that provides water for our community and for Swan Lake Provincial Park. We have formed a non profict community society called the Heritage Watersavers Society and will be applying for the same Crown Land as the hazardous waste company. Our group will be providing water stewardship and concervation. Please post my earlier comments.
Thank you,
Colleen Borodula
I and my family do our best with water conservation year round, and would like to believe most people do.
An avid fan of Japanese food and sushi, it bothers me to see the tap behind the sushi bar running non stop
something I see wherever I go.
I don’t understand the reason for this or why it continues to happen in these day’s of conservation.
What can be done about this and why does it continue to happen, I do not know
Well what a welcomed surprise in contradiction of policy to what actually is happening!
I live in the Peace RIver Block–a.k.a the Dawson Creek area. What we are witnessing up here is exactly opposite of what the Government is saying they want to do to this province.
Last night at mid-night the Environmental Assessment Office closed the public comment period for a Toxic Waste Disposal within the Swan Lake Watershed. The Majority of us “locals” are totally opposed to a fourth toxic waste disposal dump for the oil and gas industry just out side the boundaries of the “third oldest” established provincial park, Swan Lake-1918.
Secure Energy Services Inc. made application last year to build a toxic waste dump on Crown Land, on a hill top, crossing two streams which feed Swan Lake and Peavine Lake with water.
Swan Lake is the largest lake within the Kisatinaw Plateau. Which hosts 27 redlisted and 41 blue listed natural species–meaning they are endangered or they are on the verge of endangerment.
This Crown land which is up for grabs by the Calgary Corporation, unless they are stopped, was at least twice turned down by government for agricultural purposes
as agriculture would have adverse effects on the health of the watershed. Yet the Province Of BC thinks they should still be considered for this application? We dont think so.
Hundreds of residents are opposing this TOXIC DUMP for many simple reasons. SOme of which this web site outlines.
Water is becoming more and more important.
Just like the Spring and Natural Pond which secure will bulldoze over, berm up, and gravel should they be allowed.
Secure Energies Heritage Secure site would destroy the natural nesting grounds of the Canada Warbler–which is on the endangered species list and protected b the Migratory Bird Acts of both the USA and Canada, as well as by the Wildlife Acts Of BC.
The Spring on this crown land is pure, fresh and constant supplying wildlife with fresh water in the driest of times. Drought in the area is more and more common.
The BC government is looking at regulations in isolation. One act is not working with another. Any Changes to the Water Act msut be both supported and protected by enviromental regulations. Power must be brought back to those opposing sites like this one I have attempted to describe. THe BC GOvernement is being totally hypocritical should they state “green” in one breath, almost distracting the citizens while moving to clear cut crown land and allow Corporate Friends to pollute fresh water supplies in another.
I encourage readers to go to http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca click on the site HERITAGE SECURE and see if this is not the case.
I will become more watchful after this last round of trying to get this Toxic Waste Dump out of the Natural Water Supply of Swan Lake and surroundign wetlands, and will make further comment.
Could you please post the following from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs WAM Submission. Thank you.
INTRODUCTION: WATER IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE LAND
Common to all traditions of Indigenous Peoples is that water is celebrated as Sacred, and that the deep connections between all things living here, and in the spirit world, are reconfirmed. Water is the lifeblood of the land and the Indigenous Peoples whose cultures flow from the land. Indigenous Peoples recognize that to dam the waters is to dam the connection to our future generations. To fail to protect our lands and waters is a contravention of our traditional laws, and our Aboriginal Title and Rights.[1]
As Indigenous Peoples, our cultures are closely linked to water, and negative impacts on water are cycled back to our cultures and societies. Our relationships with our lands, territories and waters are fundamental to the physical, cultural and spiritual survival of our Peoples. We have responsibilities to protect the availability and purity of the waters that our Peoples, and all life, depend upon. We echo the important words of the Simpcw Nation’s Water Declaration, “We stand united to follow and implement our knowledge and traditional laws and exercise our right of self-determination to preserve water, and to preserve life.”[2]
Could you please post the following from the submission of Union of BC Indian Chiefs. Thank you.
INTRODUCTION: WATER IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE LAND
Common to all traditions of Indigenous Peoples is that water is celebrated as Sacred, and that the deep connections between all things living here, and in the spirit world, are reconfirmed. Water is the lifeblood of the land and the Indigenous Peoples whose cultures flow from the land. Indigenous Peoples recognize that to dam the waters is to dam the connection to our future generations. To fail to protect our lands and waters is a contravention of our traditional laws, and our Aboriginal Title and Rights.[1]
As Indigenous Peoples, our cultures are closely linked to water, and negative impacts on water are cycled back to our cultures and societies. Our relationships with our lands, territories and waters are fundamental to the physical, cultural and spiritual survival of our Peoples. We have responsibilities to protect the availability and purity of the waters that our Peoples, and all life, depend upon. We echo the important words of the Simpcw Nation’s Water Declaration, “We stand united to follow and implement our knowledge and traditional laws and exercise our right of self-determination to preserve water, and to preserve life.”[2]
I have been looking around blog.gov.bc.ca and actually am impressed by the awesome content here. I work the nightshift at my job and it really gets boring. I’ve been coming here for the previous couple nights and reading. I simply needed to let you know that I’ve been enjoying what I have seen and I look ahead to reading more.
I believe that for this process to be democratic, that the public consultation needs to remain open through the whole process. Much of the population is still unaware. Others are disillusioned with the process.
As was stated at a recent water meeting;” the Olympics took 10 years to plan, surely something that is so fundamental to all life should have as much consideration.
This process reminds me of the huge Forestry Development Units, where the public is only consulted before the plans are in place. A very large task for those who do not stand to profit, but could be affected or at risk. Contrary to that was the Aggregate Pilot Project where the public was kept out of the planning process, and told that there needed to be a draft for the public to comment on first, and that the elected representatives knew what the public want since they were elected… Since so few vote, I don’t share that opinion.
Please reconsider the public consultation period, and leave it open through the whole process. This issue is far too important!
Wendy Bales
Area C Director
FVRD
Excellent point Wendy. Time and again, around the world the importance of public participation in resource management has been realized. The management of water is no exception. At no point should water management be “closed” the public. Instead what may be required is a shift to more localized participation once this stage of the process is complete.
Why is the Province in such a hurry to upgrade this Act? If it has been in place for 100 years, there should be enough time given for all license holders to know what is occurring.I don’t recall seeing any information with our last water license bill.License holders were not advised of the Regional meetings.Goals and Objectives as stated in the draft, “Agriculture and BC’s Water Plan have huge financial implications for Agriculture. Cheap food policies on the one hand and increased regulations and increased input costs on the other are on a collision course, and Agriculture will be the loser.
There seems to be an assumption in government that information on WAM is readily available to everyone because it is available electronically. I have talked to a number of rural people lately, who have never had internet service, some who have given up on it because dial-up is too slow, and others who can’t download large files.
The entire WAM concept is a NON-SOLUTION to a real problem. After years and years of mismanagement of our water supplies through removal of any watershed protection, the MoE is now positing that “we” are the problem and must therefore bicker with each other over
remaining supplies while they continue to refuse to protect watersheds and seek changes to Water Act that will remove our already degraded water rights.
Therefore I respectfully request that MoE do NOTHING.
That is, you do NOT re-write the Water Act and do maintain the Status Quo governance model, until MoE can address public concerns as follows:
1) Watershed protection from resource extraction activities.
By devolving stream protection (stream as defined in the Water Act means all water courses including lakes, ponds, wetlands, streams, creeks, springs, and rivers) in Section 9 of the Water Act to other ministries (including Forestry and Energy and Mines), source protection of our water supplies is abrogated by the MoE. This must change! If the Water Act is meant to protect our water supplies it must override all other Acts in that respect. You talk about the fragmented legislation protecting water at great length, but make NO ATTEMPT in the WAM to address this problem.
Furthermore, the MoE Water Stewardship Branch makes no bones about IPPs in the form of large run-of-the-river projects when they state on page 32 of their Strategic Plan that they intend to “Adjudicate licence applications for Independent Power Producers in a manner that is consistent with provincial government corporate policy.” Furthermore, the public has recently discovered that MoE is allowing drilling into the bottom of alpine lakes (for higher head in private run-of-the-river-projects) resulting in siltation problems as we have recently seen in Sechelt. Not to mention more watershed destruction. The destruction of pristine river systems in both coastal areas and the Kootenays, shows an outright distain for protection of watersheds anywhere an RoR project is contemplated.
As to other resource extraction activities, the MoE passed the environmental assessment on Fish Lake being turned into a tailing pond placing a huge water system running all the way to the ocean at risk of serious toxic contamination. Many other mining activities, including the Raven Coal project on Vancouver Island, evince the same unconcern with contamination of watersheds and river systems with toxic effluent. Shame on you MoE!
Then we have the oil and gas extraction activities in the Horn River Basin and further north in BC. All drilling requires the use of water for making the drilling mud. Hydrofracking needs even more water and threatens the contamination of water aquifers with toxic chemicals as has already occurred in northeastern BC to some citizens water supplies. One shale gas well requires 8 to 10 million gallons of toxic chemical contaminated water for the hydrofracking process. Hydrofracking is not a licensed use of water listed on the licenses database. When I inquired of the Water Stewardship Branch about this, I was informed that exploratory activities do not pay for water use as other licensed users of water do. Alberta farmers have seen their water supplies seriously impacted by all of the drilling activities in their province. Is that what we have to look forward to in BC?
Then there are the transmission lines and pipelines that are being plotted to crisscross our province in support of resource extraction activities. Are we to seriously believe that power lines and pipelines cutting through populated areas and wilderness areas will not seriously effect our watersheds and thus our water supplies? This is preposterous and an undefendable position for the government to be taking.
The public is demanding watershed/source protection as the first commitment from government to protect our water supplies for our public use of water.
Public use of our commonly owned water supplies should be an established right and not something we pay for. Use of water to make money (and here I mean industrial use of water) on the other hand should first of all only be allowed if it can be proven (the precautionary principle) that it does not have ANY effect on public water supplies and second of all should be charged for at a rate that supports not only the costs of public use (i.e., government bureaucracies necessary to allocate and protect our water supplies) but also at rate that includes the true cost of such use. The new sustainable economic models should be applied to all industrial use of water and a commiserate license rate applied.
By far the worst effect on our water supplies is forestry as currently practiced in this province. In the past when BC companies used local contractors to cut and mill lumber our local economies flourished and our watersheds were protected. But over the last 4 decades our forests have been privatized to large multi-national corporations and our watersheds have been trashed in the process. The current government is carrying on in this tradition with mining, oil and gas extraction and now IPPs. At this rate we will have no water left at all.
It is time to modernize the “government corporate policy” to protect all of our commonly owned resources including water from the great sucking sound of multinational corporations. MoE and all other government Ministries must change their shortsighted, sell-it-all-off policies and start thinking about true sustainability of our resources. Resources that are all only increasing in value at the same time the government continues to make it easier and cheaper for multinationals to purchase these irreplaceable resources.
One final comment here. Attempting to separate water from land is ludicrous. There is really no such thing as an aquatic ecosystem. An ecosystem by definition includes the land, water, air, all life forms and the economies based on that ecosystem. Within any ecosystem all elements interact. To attempt to talk about protecting an aquatic ecosystem without talking about the land around it and the forest, shrub or grass cover that collects and stores the precipitation that feed the aquatic systems is utterly meaningless. It is similarly meaningless to assume we can have continuous growth in either our human population or a resource-based economy within that ecosystem.
Yet this is exactly what WAM does. The workshop attempted to restrict all discussion to water and purported that the state of our forests, other resource extraction activities or the government corporate policy was not on the table.
Unacceptable.
2) Committed provincial funding to implement any changes.
All of the policy discussion papers state that funding must be committed to make any of the recommended changes come to fruition. Yet the monies for the MoE has been cut over the next 3 years in the current budget, as have the monies for Forestry, ILMB, Agriculture, Energy, Mines & petroleum Resources.
How the government can with a straight face say the WAM will protect water supplies when in fact there is no committed funding to make this happen is beyond me. It would appear through reading documents that the true intent of WAM is to limit public rights to water and charge them more for water use through increased licenses fees, water rates and so forth.
This is ridiculous when all the costs should be borne by industry which is making massive profits from our commonly held resources and returning very, very, very little to the province to pay for this pillage of our resources. Where will our children and grandchildren turn for water, lumber, energy and minerals and so forth when you have sold it all off at bargain basement rates?
This is why you should throw WAM on scrap heap and start over with a logical approach to protecting our water supplies from the greatest threats, not from the smallest.
3) Full MEANINGFUL public consultation prior to introducing legislation to change the Water Act, or barring that a referendum on proposed changes to the Water Act.
This public consultation process on such a serious subject as our water supplies is a complete failure. First of all, your WAM Workshops were held through a very limited “invitation only” process. You should have notified every licenses holder in the province of these workshops and PUBLICALLY advertised the workshops at least a month in advance in newspapers all over the province. Relying on computers also marginalizes a significant portion of the public and can only be justified as cheaper than other kinds of advertising. From the public point of view, if you can’t afford to advertise the discussion of changes to the water act, then you shouldn’t be doing it.
Meaningful consultation means not only that the government commit to taking into account the comments of the public in their decision making process. It also means that the public consultation continue in the process so we have an opportunity to COMMENT on EACH STAGE of DECISION MAKING BY GOVERNMENT, If the government cannot commit to making changes at each stage to it’s policies based on the consultation, then the entire process is meaningless.
In fact, that is why I want the government to hold a public vote, an actual referendum, on the final changes to the water act prior to those changes being legislated. Full government disclosure is required. The government has LOST THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE on these matters for the reasons discussed above.
4) No changes to license status for domestic use (surface water or
well licenses)
The government says it wants to make domestic use licenses a “permitted” use. The justification for this is that the limited staff could then turn their attention to more critical issues. First of all, if the government can’t afford to administer licenses than it should not be granted the powers to manage our water. Period. Management of any of our collectively owned natural resources is the prime charge of government. It is a charge vested in them by the Crown. The government of the day is not the Crown. This is the truth that government needs to come to terms with. Then perhaps we will see some changes in the policies that are selling off our heritage for a mess of pottage!
MoE representatives had no comments on the legal ramifications of this action at the workshop I attended. Nor did they have any comments in their reports and papers on the ramifications of this action. Domestic wells would also fall under this change if ground water becomes legislated.
Under no circumstances do citizens of rural BC want their water license rights compromised now or in the future. It is the holders of licenses that have the ONLY STANDING in government hearings on new water licenses. I suspect this has much more to do with this change than does the “lack of staff”. In fact domestic use license holders’ account for half of all licensed allocations. They actually stand at the forefront of water protection in all rural areas of BC.
If MoE needs more staff to deal with problem areas of the province that have over-developed for the amount of water available after watershed destruction, then MoE should either get funds from the government for this hiring or they should implement a tax on resource extraction to cover this cost. Simple. But under no circumstances should they pit urban versus rural populations as they have in the WAM discussion paper to get urban support for removing rural water rights. Disgusting!
5) Maintain FITFIR as is.
FITFIR is a time honored, working, self-limiting system that deters over-allocation of water supplies. The government in its role as manager of our water has over-allocated water in many areas of the province according to their maps. What they need to do is attend to their mismanagement, disclose the reasons why they have over-allocated water supplies and fix that process, NOT modify FITFIR to cover the errors they have made. It is entirely unclear why we are in this position.
Furthermore, often the government will state as a fact something that is not true. For example at the workshop I attended, a participant (a lawyer actually) asked what information the MoE spokesperson was basing his statement that BC had been in a drought for a number of years and expected to be in the future. The MoE rep immediately backtracked and said that the precipitation data didn’t show a drought, but some areas of BC had experienced less precipitation. This is the kind of sweeping mis-statement that the public objects to, especially when discussing a subject as vital as our water supplies.
The problem with modifying FITFIR is that government behind closed doors will develop a priority system for modifications. This is entirely unacceptable. If the government wants to change the Water Act then an open process with public decision making must do it. Of course, domestic use for health and sanitation and agriculture must have the highest priority (after instream flows).
Protecting instream flows, or as some prefer to refer to this as protecting nature, is of course the basis of any allocation system and would thus have first priority. If the water is not there in the first place, it can’t be allocated. But where is the data for guaranteeing instream flows? This is the problem. First, the hydrometric stations in BC are all federal installations over which the MoE has no control. In fact, a few years ago there were 470 such stations in BC, now there are 450. How can relevant data for all allocations in BC be garnered from a shrinking database of information. The answer: it can’t.
Second, there are various ways of determining instream flow requirements. The simplest (i.e., cheapest to achieve) is a monthly low-flow scheme. Unfortunately this is not a recommended standard by scientists who work in the field or by governments like Australia who are struggling with real drought conditions due to the El Nino/La Nina flip.
Our ability to feed ourselves is moving into the public consciousness as a huge issue as we see globalization breaking down. Maintaining FITFIR is very important so established farms and livestock operations have priority water use.
Furthermore, the danger of modifying FITFIR is a very slippery slope. In the ENGO Statement of Expectations IPPs had a higher priority for water use than agriculture or domestic use. This is completely unacceptable. This is a pure and simple commodification of our water supplies to the highest bidder. This must under NO circumstances be allowed. Any resource extraction use must have the lowest priority as such uses have the concomitant problems of destroying watersheds and contaminating water.
6) Include wording in the Water Act that acknowledges water as
a human right, collectively OWNED by all as a common resource.
This point can not be emphasized enough as it goes to the main problem of wrong-headed thinking regarding water and its protection evinced in the WAM documents. Below is a discussion I wrote recently regarding the issue of who owns the water.
Our current government is very fond of stating that it OWNS all of the water in BC. Until recently the MoE water website was littered with the statement. They have since toned it down somewhat, but the words are still there and in documents written by others as well.
This is not the truth however. To understand this all one must do is look at the current BC Water Act. Here is the actual wording at the beginning of the act (Part 1 is only definitions):
Part 2 — Licencing, Diversion and Use of Water and Related Matters
Section 2—Vesting water in government
(1) The property in and the right to the use and flow of all the water at any time in a stream in British Columbia are for all purposes vested in the government, except only in so far as private rights have been established under licences issued or approvals given under this or a former Act.
The important word here is vested. Vest is a verb. According to Webster’s it means to give, bestow or grant a right. And who vested government? That would be the Crown.
The current Liberal government is not the Crown. Since we live in a Constitutional Monarchy, here is the order of authority:
• The Crown is the institution, which represents the power of the people above government and political parties.
• The Crown, represented by the head state, retains the powers of government, while the governing party exercises the powers of government.
• The Crown, however, only allows the government and political parties to exercise powers in trust for use on behalf of the people.
So really the government of the day only exercises powers like a trustee of an estate would. They do not “own” the estate, they simply manage it for a time.
Maud Barlow of the Council of Canadians made this point very eloquently in the October 2009 edition of the CCPA Monitor when she was describing the recent victory in Ontario where citizens defeated a government plan to put a garbage dump directly on top of the aquifer that contained their drinking water supply. Following are her words:
“Under common law, a tradition followed in all provinces and territories except Quebec, water is recognized as a public trust. It belongs collectively to all, and governments must manage water in the public interest. Governments do not have the authority to make decisions affecting collective resources that violate the public interest.”
So you see, dear MoE, you must take into account the public interest in your resource management activities. Allowing our watersheds to be destroyed is NOT in the public interest. Setting up an “environment for investors” is not in the public interest. You must somehow find the wit or the will to protect our water supplies. If you do not the public will demand in a court of law that our water supplies are protected from your mismanagement.
Furthermore, your principles as presented at the workshop failed to cover the most basic and important fact regarding water, namely that it is a human right.
Instead we see MoE talking about “higher economic value” as a basis for prioritizing water allocations. This is repugnant to the public.
The Water Act in Section 9 devolves water protection to the FRPA when forestry activities are occurring. The FRPA states that protections of environmental or economic values can only be applied “…without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia’s forests…” This is one of the main reasons that the Water Act must be modernized in the true meaning of the word. As I state below, the placing of commercial interests above the protection of our human right to water is simply wrong. I wrote briefly about where such activity will lead the government in the following quote:
Historically, all peoples in 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 business.
To place the commercial interests of logging above the protection of citizen rights to clean and dependable water supply, as new forest regulations do, is not a particularly defensible position.
The principles of legal pluralism explain that when statute law meets traditional wisdom head-on, unrelenting agitation from the public is only to be expected and solutions must be sought to end this conflict.
One such solution would be for MoE to write into the Water Act the basic fact that access to water is a human right, that water is owned collectively by all and that water will be managed in the public interest by government.
7) Local decision making power on all water allocations
It was very apparent at the workshop I attended that the public understands all water use decisions must be affected at the local level. This means the government cannot simply impose across the board standards and expect local compliance.
Local history, common sense and traditional values must play a role in water use decisions. This will only happen if local decision making authority is incorporated in the Water Act. Something that does not exist at the present time nor is proposed in the WAM documents.
The WAM seems really to be an attempt by government to escape their responsibilities to manage our water effectively. This includes the following responsibilities:
a) developing databases of province-wide water information (including that related to groundwater aquifers) that is necessary for proper management,
b) developing water use and water protection plans for all areas of the province based on the solid data collected above,
c) basing water allocations on the developed plans based on the real data
d) dedicating the funds necessary to carry out all three levels of action including staff, equipment and IT systems that are necessary for this work.
There is no proposal in WAM for the government to undertake any of these activities. It seems rather that government will only address critical or problem areas of the province. The rest of us will continue along without proper planning or data on which to base that planning until we too become critical areas.
Somehow, standards for maintaining in stream flow will be developed without sufficient scientific stream flow data, groundwater will be regulated without sufficient aquifer location or volume data, the plans that were mandated to government development in both the Water Act and the Drinking Water Act will instead be handled by some privatized Water Agency or by local interest groups.
And the funds will come from increased license fees (for everyone, not just for industry) and from forcing municipal, regional district, community and private water systems to increase their rates and perhaps from increased property taxes. This is not acceptable to the public.
I can only suggest that the government must look at how they are subsidizing resource extraction activities by using tax dollars that could go to water protection. This subsidization includes not only charging ridiculously low royalty rates for oil, gas and minerals extraction, subsidizing road building for all such activities, but also either not charging for water use or charging (again) ridiculously low rates for water licenses. None of this is acceptable.
As to the government always claiming it creates jobs, all anyone has to do is look at the state of our forestry industry to see what government management hidden behind their “jobs, jobs, jobs” mantra has done for that industry.
Citizens have reached the point where they no longer trust government management practices (practices that are little more than thinly veiled privatization schemes).
8 ) We do not need legislation to protect us from ourselves.
There will always be debates about water use, yes. But local communities can handle that. They always have and they always will. Water allocation is not really the problem that MoE makes it out to be in WAM documents. What the problem really is is lack of protection of our entire BC water supply from resource extraction and related activities.
What citizens do need from government is legislation with teeth to protect our watersheds and pristine water systems from destruction by resource extraction activities including IPPs.
Why did you place a smiley face above my last point?
as in my original email or note that it is an editorial comment from the WAM blog moderator.
Could you please either remove it and insert the number
Thank you,
Nelle Maxey
As a resident of West Vancouver I have frequent discussion with local gov’t regarding tree issues. They tell me that DFO has control over all streams up to 45 ft to either side. If this is so, howcome the Prov. Gov’t. is now claiming the right to control stream issues , whether it be volume or foliage ?
Legal protection of all wetlands, including the ecologically critical shallow wetlands, is needed for water security, water quality and ecological health of our province. Wetlands play a key role in the water cycle, including filtration of water, retention in times of drought, runoff mitigation and flood control.
Wetlands are also storehouses of biological diversity, providing critical habitat for an unparaleled diversity of plants and animals, including many red and blue listed species.
However, there is no clear legislation that properly protects wetlands. The riparian areas regulation applies to fishbearing wetlands, but the riparian area allowance is insufficient to maintain the hydrological and ecological functions of the wetland.
It is widely reccommended that two parts of upland habitat be protected for every part wetland in order to properly protect habitat value and maintain water filtration and other hydrological functions critical to the water and habitat value of any wetland.
Also, full protection is needed for non fishbearing wetlands, as they play all the important hydrological roles fishbearing wetlands do, and provide equal and in many cases superior habitat for many species, including at risk species due to high concentrations of invertebrates and amphibians that are not under pressure from fish predations.
Some species, such as fairy shrimps, require non fishbearing wetlands, both because fish would prevent them from existing in the habitat, and because the seasonal conditions of many non fish bearing wetlands are nessicary to dry out and hatch the eggs. in turn, the abundant invertebrate populations support large numbers of birds and amphibians.
The cost of not protecting all wetlands is far higher than any percieved costs of fully protecting all wetlands including the critical shallow non fish bearing wetlands.
Any issues of supposed rights of landowners to damage wetlands is moot, as the greater public interest has a right to protection of these valuable water resources in the same way the public interest presides over private interest in many cases of the Fisheries Act application.
We have lost many wetlands as much as over 75 percent in some of our more populated areas (where we need the wetlands most). We cannot afford to let any more be lost or degraded. It is time to simply say “enough” like China did when hardwood forests were being logged out, or the United States did with the creation of the Endangered Species Act to protect biodiversity.
The Wetland Stewardship Partnership and Wetland Action Plan is a good start, but for something as important as wetland conservation, voluntary participation and guidlines are not enough. We have an opportunity here to ensure the sustainability of our Province, and protect what matters most in the long run: Clean water, healthy land and healthy biodiversity.
To the Government of BC: Please enact full legal protection for all BC Wetlands if you are serious about our province’s water. This could look like a “Wetland Conservation Act”, which would fully protect all natural wetlands, with a proper upland buffer included when feasible.
Christopher Stephens
I feel the water branch has to quit rewarding water abusers and start rewarding those who make the effort to use the water wisely. The act has rules that are seldom enforced. The water branch has to apply the rules equally to all for the system to work. Water is everyones responsibility.
Landowners shall have the right to own, use, enjoy and profit from their property and shall not be deprived of those rights except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice including full, fair and timely compensation.
It is always a concern when the government decides on what is best for Canadians. Governments are focusing on water and I wonder what their agenda is? A reason to charge higher cost of providing water to consumers, taxing water, limiting water, and selling water for profit? Landowners need to be rewarded for good environmental practices and consumers for water conservation. Water has become a precious and a valuable commodity for governments, providing water to “big business”, hydro and export. To sustain this, it means conservation and restrictions for consumers and agriculture. Agriculture will be the biggest loser in the water issue. In this province, agriculture has not been a priority. Without water, agriculture will not survive, but why would that concern the government. Poultry, beef, pork, wine, milk products, fruit, vegetables and whatever else we purchase, can be obtained from other countries. We as Canadians should be very concerned about water quality and quantity for agriculture and for the people in Canada, or we are going to be at the mercy of foreign imports.
Sue,
We here at the Living Water Smart team are aware that many British Columbians have concerns about the renewed focus on water. You are right in identifying water as precious and valuble, it most certainly is. We on the team see water not as a commodity, but as a resource for all British Columbians. That is why we’re committed to hearing from those like yourself who are passionate about water. That’s why we’re looking for both blog comments and, where you feel it is appropriate, more direct feedback on specific Water Act Modernization concerns. There’s a specific section which addresses agriculture, which, from your comment is an area of water modernization that you’re pretty passionate about. We’d like to hear more from you. Have you taken the online feedback survey on Water Act Modernization?
Greetings,
I am writing as an individual. I am not affiliated with any political party, nor do I espouse any political agenda. I have quoted from a public document that is freely distributed without copyright infringements.
Initially, I would like to make the comment that water is not only sacred to the First Nations, it is held in sacred trust by all humanity. It is unfortunate that the government chose to categorize water users into three divisions…First Nations, Stakeholders and finally “the public”.
I was left to wonder what the government’s definition of a stakeholder is? Perhaps that could be clarified? Water is one of the sources of life, we all drink water…we are all “stakeholders”. Unfortunately, the government’s terminology has inadvertently created a distinct division between peoples, with one group seemingly more important than the other. Perhaps this is simply an oversight?
Personally, I live on the land with my drinking & irrigation water source(s) coming from a well. I observe the turning of each season, I have an interconnection with the earth and know what is coming next. It is shaping up for the Perfect Storm…doesn’t look good.
Also I have watched as the Nanaimo Airport has expanded overtop of the Cassidy Aquifer using an engineers report based on 1951 and 1979 outdated data data to receive expansion approval from the Agricultural Land Commission. The Cassidy Aquifer has, through a current report from VIU, been deemed highly vulnerable. Yet this study was not even considered while your government gave over $11 million in taxpayer’s dollars for runway expansion and there is talk of even more taxpayer’s dollars going to an airport that doesn’t even have a carrier for larger aircraft.
If this private airport can’t make it on it’s own it shouldn’t be in business subsidized by the taxpayer and it’s position over the aquifer and in the ALR should not be putting local residents’ water sources at risk.
Last year, in drought conditions as the water table dropped drastically, wells in the area of the airport ran dry. For the first time ever!
While the government is considering a New Water Act it should also take into consideration, and very seriously, how inappropriately located non-stop development is affecting water and water quality/quantity sources.
Years ago there was a British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy: Creating a Sustainable Future – GEORGIA BASIN INITIATIVE. This report is a public document that was couched in layman’s terms, clearly understandable and, throughout the report it was repeatedly stated that “as the urban areas have expanded, they have encroached on the streams, rivers, and wetlands of the region”; “urban settlement and development has sprawled into outlying rural lands, resulting in inefficient use of our land, energy and our resources”; “the rapid population growth has strained the region’s ability to provide necessities such as…water and waste disposal”; “water shortages caused by increased growth, over-consumption, and below average precipitation rates have led to restrictions on residential water use in recent years. Population growth and economic expansion will only exacerbate supply shortages”.
The Georgia Basin Initiative: Creating a Sustainable Future is dated May 1993.
This is 2010 and the water situation on this Island has worsened. I have compiled reams of documented evidence supporting this statement.
The new Water Act your government come ups with must factor in every conceivable consideration as the problem is overlapping and interconnected. A new Water Act must not be in isolation to other government activities, in particular non-stop development because over-development has contributed to the drastic situation many peoples find themselves in. All the puny little conservation methods in the world like low flow toilets or water conserving washing machines or turning off the tap while brushing teeth will not counter over-development in formerly forested or rural farmland areas.
Hopefully, and this is said in all respect, your government will be able to step up to the plate and grasp the entire picture because, as the Georgia Basin Initiative of 1993 emphasized, there is a need “to see immediate action taken to address the major issues” with “further consultation or study of the issues represent(ing) a delay that most participants felt the basin could ill afford”.
As your government moves forward on a new Water Act please include people who live on the land, not just native folk, but everyone. The stewards of the land are the holders of invaluable knowledge, wisdom and experience from which we can all benefit. Their contribution is invaluable. Please demonstrate you value those qualities. For the benefit of the province and the land and water we hold in sacred trust, don’t shut them out. Consult with them.
We are all “stakeholders”.
Respectfully yours.