Protecting Stream Health and Aquatic Environments
We heard lots of feedback last week about water markets and your support for strong environmental protection.
The protection of stream health and aquatic environments is a key policy direction of the proposed Water Sustainability Act. The focus of this policy direction is instream flow requirements.
So what is an instream flow?
In this video Ted White explains:
The proposed Water Sustainability Act would require that instream flows be considered when water is allocated. Instream flows would be legally protected as an environmental value. This will strengthen the protection of stream health and aquatic environments.
We welcome your comments and questions.
Top
Thank you for the extended time to comment.
The policy directions of resolving First Nations rights and title and moving toward inclusive and collaborative structures is very positive.
Currently water rights are vested in the Crown. The Water Act was written to promote mining, agricultural use, economic development. The government is correct to consider updating the Water Act to deal with multiple use, conflicts between environmental, industrial, agricultural and domestic use, problems which were not present 100 years ago. The consultation process has been well done.
Of utmost importance is to have government regulation of water use in our province. Water is a PUBLIC trust, to be maintained and protected by the provincial government on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The use of “economic instruments and incentives”, such as the trading of water licenses, is an abandonment of public trust to private companies. Water must remain entirely under the jurisdiction and control of the provincial government.
As you indicate, there must be monitoring and measuring of actual water use by large license holders but it must be by using regulatory standardsrather than using guidelines Guidelines as for instream flow, are not sufficient; they can be ignored. The Water Sustainability Act must contain regulatory standards for instream flow, groundwater use, and all water use.
The idea of “an area-based approach for water management” is good – it should be based on watersheds. The wishes of the people living there should be of equal or greater weight than that of interests based outside the watershed, not just “have influence water management and help inform decisions.” And, the environment,(birds, aquatic creatures and land creatures which are part of the aquatic ecosystem), must have first priority for water use.
As is suggested, groundwater must be regulated; it should be based on scientific study, in all areas of the province, not just high priority areas. The extraction of groundwater for oil and gas drilling is especially problematic.
The interaction between groundwater and surface water must be included in groundwater framework, e.g withdrawal of water for hydraulic fracturing, (“fracking”), and the re-injection of slick fracking water back into the ground in deep disposal wells.
The use and disposal of water for hydraulic fracturing is of serious concern. Will Koop has noted that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has granted approval to Talisman Energy at their Lynx Creek site to withdraw, 5000 cubic metres, (1,100,00 imperial gallons or 5,00,000 litres) of water PER DAY, (“24/7 Less Peace in the Peace”, October 2010, http://www.bctwa.org). And that is only one of many wells in the area. That water, after it has been mixed with toxic chemicals, (e.g. benzene) and used for fracking, is then re-injected underground to possibly pollute groundwater used for drinking water from wells, water becoming lakes and streams, etc.
In the Kiskatinaw River watershed, In N.E. B.C., there are 33 water licenses and 13 licensed waterworks authorized by the Ministry of Environment and temporary water withdrawal permits granted for 25 locations by the Oil and Gas Commission. As well, there are 200 oil and gas exploration and development permits and 29 coal mining tenures, which use water. In this watershed there are a total of 1,200 explicit licenses issued,(including the above mentioned). The Water Sustainability Act must provide a legislative framework for the cumulative use of water in watersheds to overcome the current piecemeal approach to water use.
The policy proposal states, “The Province will also determine the compliance and enforcement framework.” It is a great concern that compliance and enforcement tools will not be legislatively based, resulting in weak enforcement.
In sum, the new Water Sustainability Act must:
- consider environmental flow needs first, over industrial use
- the current allocation system, “First in Time, First in Need” must be phased out with the Provincial Government legislatively recognized as stewards of the water, with the ability to allocate water based on a hierarchy of recognized needs, e.g. environment first, domestic use second, agricultural use third and industrial use fourth.
- make sure that information about water use by users must be available to all and decisions made about water must also be transparent.
- have a commitment to meaningful decision-making by local watershed residents
- have a commitment to meaning full decision-making by residents concerning industrial use in nearby watersheds, e.g. concerning run-of-the-river projects.
- address the problem of multiple agencies issuing water licenses and the cumulative effect of all those uses.
- maintain water as a public trust, (no buying or selling of water or water rights)
Sincerely,
M. Tyrwhitt-Drake, Director
On behalf of the Executive, Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1993)
I am completely opposed to any attempt to create a water market and give private companies control over a public resource. Our water should not be for sale or traded for a quick profit. This will only lead to further destruction of our natural environment. Water in streams and rivers or underground is not “wasted.” It is vital to the long term health of our communities.
We have not even addressed water conservation. Canadians use far more water than citizens in other countries because we have seen it as an unlimited resource. We need to address the water conservation seriously before we even consider taking more water for human use.
This proposed act does not provide for adequate protection of our water or for managing our water in the face of climate change.
Our ecosystems should be given first and legislated priority so that they can continue to survive.
Local communities need to have more of a voice in water allocation and management. We are currently experiencing a “gold rush” on our local streams and rivers with the undemocratic IPP proposals, where local communities can only watch in horror as their cherished environment is destroyed so business can make a quick profit leaving taxpayers with a destroyed landscape and a huge power bill.
I believe this proposed water act only offers more of the same. It needs to be postponed, rewritten to ensure clearly defined, long term protection for our water sources and then there should be an extensive public consultation.
I believe it is vitally important for the concerns of Canadians, as voiced in the comments here, be listened to and addressed in the wording of the legislation.
Too many times in the past, legislation has been passed with a particular intent and loose language, only to later be used to justify actions and decisions that move directly opposite to the original “intent” of the legislation. Canadians are clear: we don’t want to risk privatization of water resources or having rights to Canadian water being sold off. We are told that this piece of legislation intends to protect against that. OK then, state it CLEARLY in the wording of the act. Don’t allow vague language to jeapordize that intent.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Water Sustainability Act.
There are some positive initiatives in the proposal, such as regulation of groundwater, improved conservation and efficiency requirements and protection of stream health and aquatic ecosystems.
However, there are some significant gaps and concerns in the policy proposal that must be addressed if we are going to balance competing demands for water, ensure watersheds are healthy, and best serve the public interest through good decision-making and public participation. The law must explicitly recognize that water resources are not just owned by the government but held in trust for the public.
While the policy proposal appears to recognize the need to balance the needs of water for people and water for the cranes and eagles, for the frogs, salamanders, salmon and other fish, for the ecosystem itself, the proposed in-stream flow measures would only apply to new water users and not to the 44,000 current water licence holders. This is a significant weakness, as is leaving in-stream flow measures as only “guidelines” and not legislated with a robust regulatory framework. The law must require existing licences to protect environmental flows. I support a “priority of use” approach – where drinking water and agriculture would receive priority over, say, oil and gas development.
A better system of water governance would recognize that citizen engagement, watershed management groups with multiple sectors represented, and empowered local governments is a better model to decide how we make decisions about water.
I look forward to a strong new law to protect BC’s water, for current and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment; one can only hope that these comments are seriously considered.
How decisions are made about water will define our future as a province. The Water Sustainability Act proposal has the appearances of weak regulatory framework and notions that conflict with the Canadian Public Trust Doctrine.
I am concerned that the desire for enforceable standards regarding in-stream flows has been only vaguely and loosely addressed. In-stream flow measures have been left as only “guidelines” and not legislated with a robust regulatory framework.
More importantly, though, I am concerned that the “First-in-Time, First-in-Right” regime, allowing markets and license trading to decide allocation, does not exercise the fiduciary duty to sustain water – central to our existence – for the long term use by the entire populace.
A better system of water governance would recognize that water belongs equally to all peoples, that water allocation should be determined by citizen engagement, watershed management groups with multiple sectors represented, and empowered local governments.
Yours Truly,
Jamie Greig
BC Water and Waste Association (BCWWA) is a not-for-profit organization with 4400 members representing the trained professionals in the water and wastewater industry on which the public rely to keep our water safe. These include engineers, water and wastewater treatment plant operators, researchers, policy makers, educators and others. Our mandate is safeguarding public health and the environment through education and knowledge sharing.
Through extensive consultation with our members, BCWWA prepared and submitted in June 2010 a written response to the Water Act Modernization (click here to view: http://www.bcwwa.org/index.php?option=com_bcwwaresourcelibrary&view=resource&resource=10&download=10). Our response included a number of recommendations and we are pleased to see that the proposed policy on a new Water Sustainability Act aligns well with these recommendations.
BCWWA recognizes the importance of moving forward with new ideas to modernize the outdated Water Act and encourages the Ministry of Environment and the Government of BC to continue in the direction that has been put forward in the Policy Proposal on British Columbia’s new Water Sustainability Act. We will continue to be involved in this process and we look forward to next steps in bringing this legislation to fruition.
While I am glad to see the Canadian government is looking into updating our Water Act, the vagueness of the “tradable permits” in section 5.1 is very worrying and leads to a lot of speculation about the future of a vital public resource as a trading commodity. If there is money to be made, greed (within both corporate and private domains) will no doubt trump efforts to protect the environment and poses a risk to the future of water sustainability in Canada. As Kimberly Shearon writes on the EcoJustice blog seen here: http://www.ecojustice.ca/blog/what-does-privatization-of-water-look-like , “California is the birthplace of the water market” and right now they are in a very dire situation when it comes to water because they have abused their water resource for the sake of making a quick buck. In the end, it is the citizens and environment who suffer the most. Though the government currently claims that their definition of “water market” does not amount to “privatization of water”, the policy should be dropped from the Water Act. Please keep in mind that once a Water Act is drafted and passed through legislation, it may not be altered again for the next 100 years! If water is stated in the Act as “tradable”, then sooner or later, someone will abuse it to sell Canadian water to the highest bidder in a world that is rapidly facing a shortage of clean water and Canadians will suffer for it. As a British Columbian, I am horrified at the prospect of water privatization and the impact it would have on the future of Canada’s environment, people, and wildlife. Please keep Canada’s water clean and protected while maintaining the public’s right to its use for now and for future generations.
From my prospective I think it is important that we not get into the possible use of water rights to either sell water to another country or to a large corporation. It is important that users come to the table as equals and not have to either compete with companies with vast economic resources or with huge political assets. Priorities for me would be 1. food production and drinking water, 2. ecological stability, i.e. needs of stream habitat for fish, and other aquatic creatures, 3. industrial needs (with a clear recycling plan for reuse of water), 4. use for human needs, hopefully again with a recycling plan.
The January 21 issue of Time magazine has a great article on how taking care of the environment has become an important economic consideration for business. “Conserving the upstream land is a cheaper way of protecting downstream water quality thn building costly treatment plants. New York City did this in the 1990′s, purchasing or protecting over 70,000 acres of its watershed upstate to avoid the need for a $6 billion treatment plant.”
Given the proper planning and support, agricultural land owners not only produce our food, but they also maintain stream health, build structures to store water, maintain forested land and improve water quality and the environment. Water management planning needs to take into account the needsfor agricultural users as a high priority.
It would also be a good idea to start looking at industrial and residential zoning and taxation that put a premium on the conservation and recycling of water. Water is such a valuable resource in British Columbia and we have some of the finest water in the world, it is such a shame that we waste it like we do.
The lower mainland municipalities should not be drawing ancient water out of the aquifer for showers and toilet flushing, and yet I don’t believe people even consider where their water is coming from. In some countries where most of the labor of the day is spent in getting enough water to survive, and that often contaminated, what must they think of us.
All water supply projects have environmental consequences. I would like to see the Water Act require significant investments in reducing water demand before any water supply augmentation projects are undertaken.
Before a reservoir is built or more wells are drilled to supplement water supply, cities / municipalities should be required to design and implement a plan for reducing water demand that includes such things as information campaigns, increasing costs for water, and providing incentives for water saving devices, rainwater harvesting and gray-water systems.
Reducing demand is the most effective way of limiting environmental impacts.
Thank you for allowing comments. This proposal starts from a fundamental understanding of water. Water should be seen as the life blood of the planet and not some commodity which can be traded and sold for monetary gain. Water needs to be protected like to life blood of the planet. Activities which pollute water should be prevented and forest practices which degrade water quality need to be prevented. Buffers of up to 1000 meters on rivers and major streams are needed with individual trees selectively harvested if timber from those stream protection forest is needed.
Forest cover and the living water vapour from forest evapo-transpiration should be considered in the hydrological cycle. The homeopathtic quantities of enlivened water vapour from forest cover contributes life energies to the ocean evaporation in the hydrological cycle and imparts high quality nutrients to rain water.
Such enlivened rainwater can recharge groundwater if there is a positive temperature gradient (soil surface colder than rain temperature) This requires continuous vegetation cover. The current forest practice of large clear cuts, at certain times of the year, make surface temperatures higher than rain temperatures (negative temperature gradient) and prevents adequate infiltration of enlivened rain water. What is needed is a forest policy which requires continuous cover forestry.
These changes to stream and river protection and to forest policy are key to developing a healthy nutrient dense ground water the life blood of the planet.
Please listen my voice as a resident of British Columbia. I believe that the proposed Water Sustainability Act has a number of positive initiatives. However, I do not support the unchanged policy of “first-in-time, first-in-right” in regards to water allocation in our province. This current water allocation regime proposes water licence trading and water markets to deal with allocation. This could lead the way to the privatization of our water. Many British Columbians, including me, do NOT want to have that happen. You should consider including a decision making process that allows water users within a basin to determine equitable allocation (in times of drought), and government regulation of the ways in which licensees can exercise water entitlement in order to ensure efficient and sustainable use of our water resources.
As well, strong regulations for in-stream flows are our province’s best insurance against further degradation of our natural world. A new water law must have strong, legislated flows to meet the needs for human needs AND the environment. A new Water Sustainability Act should ensure better transparency of hydrological/water licensing data to allow in-stream flow needs to be understood, set environmental flow standards, and develop “precautionary flow numbers” for rivers and streams where incomplete data exists (until more site-specific determinations can be made).
Please avoid creating legislation that can permit the development of privatized water in our province and develop strong regulations for in-stream flows in the new Water Sustainability Act.
I agree that the First-In-Time-First-In-Right priority date and a Priority of Use approach to managing water is archaic. During times of scarcity, everyone should take steps to reduce consumption and ensure in-stream flows. The ministry could included provisions in licensing agreements for surface and groundwater withdrawals, where in times of scarcity, all licensees are required to reduce withdrawal rates by a certain percentage.
I also think that there should not be different treatment of licensees based on the “priority date”, or the First-In-Time-First-In-Right principle.
Certainly water licenses should be awarded first-come-first-serve, but then all water license holders (within a sector) should be treated equally when water use reductions have to be made.
This is no longer the wild west where water comes with land claims and the first to drive in their stake is the lucky owner. Water access and use must be equitably shared between all citizens, and that means that all water users should be treated equally, regardless of the date on their license.
Also, I think that all licenses (new and existing) should have terms short enough to allow flexibility in planning water allocation. Even senior licensees should have to renew their license on a regular basis of no more than 10 years. This is necessary to ensure that water planning can adapt to changing conditions in society and in climate.
Re: WSA
I support more public consultation of draft legislation of WSA. All stakeholders should have more input into actual legislation. It is hard to trust the government which has not provided enough staff to provide better data on water in BC and management in general. There should be more time given to make sure changes to the water act make it the best act to fairly accomodate everyone and ensure water quality and sustainability. There are a lot of smart people that have made good comments on water, there a lot of British Columbians who perhaps do not know that changes to the water act are taking place. I agree with the comment- true saving starts at the individual level. This has to go hand in hand with more knowledge of how water is actually being used in the province. I support the “soft” policies that have been previously mentioned here over “hard” policies. I do not support water markets. I support enshrining the common right to water in the new water act.
Some new government acts contain a provision that requires a review of the act in several years. Could the new water act contain a provision that requires a review of the act to make sure it is working well. Also, could there be some mention of how conflict resolution may be dealt with as there may be a lot of new rules that may cause problems and there should be easy access to and help for those who need assistance. Seniors and others not used to computer information may find things difficult.
There have been several letters in local newspapers recently regarding smart meters for electrical consumption. Smart meters for electricity consumption are wireless devices that use electromagnetic frequency. Transmitting from the walls of homes, smart meters will effectively blanket entire neighborhoods with electromagnetic radiation everyday all day 24/7/365. Some say this represents an entirely new source of continuous, involuntary radio frequency saturation of the same type as cell phones and cell towers. Many people are concerned that there has not been enought study of the health effects of smart meters and the amount of radiation emitted. If the meters for water consumption will also emit EMFs I do not support them because of health concerns. (See http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110205/KAMLOOPS0304/302059992/-1/kamloops/guest-column-more-questions-than-answers-on-potential-danger-of#)
Could you please answer the following questions from WSA framework:
- Provincial Water Objectives – who determines these and could you please give some examples of what they might be. Would this improve conditions in which water is used for resource extraction – i.e. fracking etc.
- Under to use water more efficiently – sector-based codes of practice will be enabled. Could you please give more details on sector-based codes of practice?
- expanded compliance and enforcement – please give more details. There is little staff to enforce infractions presently. Will more staff be hired.
-) administrative efficiencies for users and government – please give more details.
-) is there a difference between known problem areas and chronic problem areas?
-) additional restrictions in new water licences may result in increases in project costs, such as the costs associated with constructing storage infrastrucure. Please give more details on storage infrastructure.
-) Under policy direction – regulate groundwater use -concern expressed for critical areas, aquifers under stress, for cross-jurisdictional integration. Could you please explain cross-jurisdictional integration.
-) Under in chronic problem areas where there are significant water supply issues – Could you please give more details on water resource assessments and strategic water allocation plans.
Christina
GB Goudriaan , Swing Voters
WATER RIGHTS TRADING appears to give control of public water to private interests. Will this nullify the domestic water rights we have now? Will we have to pay private interests for the domestic and farm water we get from the creek?
Thank you for reiterating the importance of protecting stream health and ecosystems. For those readers who would like further information on environmental flows check out the upcoming webinar, “Addressing Nature’s Water Needs: The Science, Policy And Politics Of Environmental Flows” on February 16th. For further registration info check out http://www.waterpolicy.ca/beta/webinar.php#w8
We know protecting environmental flows are important and would also like to suggest three opportunities to ensure protection in the proposed Water Sustainability Act :
Opportunity 1: Legally established “minimum” environmental flow standards in each major river/stream system are required. These “minimums” must be viewed as paramount and therefore are considered and followed in all further decision making. The new Water Sustainability Act should contain a provision that requires the reservation of water for ecological purposes that have priority over all other uses.
Opportunity 2: Water Allocations Plans should be required for selected watersheds where there are existing or potential conflicts between users and/or a need to protect environmental flows. These Water Allocation Plans should be part of any legislated Watershed Plans and would recognize and enshrine the environmental flows needed to ensure watershed function. These plans should be regularly updated and Government should require decision makers to follow these Plans.
Establishing and updating environmental flows is often complicated and requires good science and specific hydrological and ecological expertise. This eco-hydrology field is certainly well established and existing processes such as the BC Hydro Water Use Planning Process “Instream Flow Needs” approach is a good starting point; yet understanding is still evolving. To assist Government and decision makers around the province, we recommend striking an independent expert committee that can provide area specific advice in establishing ecological reserves and general input as understanding or knowledge in the field advances.
Opportunity 3: The Water Sustainability Act should include provision (and terms of reference) for a combined natural and social science-based Environmental Flows Committee. This Committee would be tasked with providing advice on how to establish environmental flows in critical watersheds in an independent, transparent and public manner and providing regular – every 3-5 years – reports for the broader public.
I also am in favour of legally established minimums in all major rivers/streams. These should take priority over new and existing water licenses, and all water licenses should be treated equally when water use reductions are required.
I demand that the government drop the worst components of the new act/*, such as its water privatization (‘water markets’) and de-regulation of ‘environmental flows’ measures. The following is the position that I take on this vital matter:
I am strongly opposed to the proposed Water Sustainability Act. It appears that this proposed ‘modernization’ of the Water Act is being
exploited as an opportunity to do two things that are fundamentally against the public interest.
Firstly, by creating water markets that essentially gift a public good (water) to a private corporation or individual and then make it a tradeable commodity, the BC government would be PRIVATIZING WATER and
turning it into a commodity that can then be sold to the highest bidder. Since water is essential to life and many users depend on it, there’s no justification for gifting ownership of water to a privileged few (such as Independent Power Producers or mining
companies) and then making other users pay whatever price the lucky new ‘owners’ of the water decide to charge. Since water is so essential, there would of course be virtually no limit to what the
private ‘owners’ could charge. This is an affront to any concept of natural justice or democracy. Because of its uniquely essential nature, water has always been and must continue to be a public good
that is publicly controlled by the BC government and managed for the benefit of all users and the environment.
Secondly, the proposed Water Sustainability Act would gut strong legal protections for environmental flows (rules that ensure water takings do not compromise the health of the river/stream ecosystem) and replace them with ‘guidelines’ that merely have to be ‘considered’ when water is being taken from a river/stream. This is clearly a move
to de-regulation that will allow private corporations or individuals to exploit water resources for maximum economic benefit while ignoring
the health of the ecosystem. How can this possibly be sustainable? One can easily imagine a scenario where a bottled water company would have an economic incentive to squeeze as much water out of a stream as
possible, with a passing nod to the environmental flow ‘guidelines’.
To de-regulate a public good like water in such a way is grossly irresponsible.
Because the privatization and de-regulation of water are so clearly against the public interest, I demand that: the BC government
immediately drop its water markets concept (including the long term/permanent gifting of water rights to certain corporations/individuals and all measures that would facilitate making water a tradeable commodity); the BC government abandon its plan to
downgrade legal protections for environmental flows to ‘guidelines’.
The citizens of BC deserve a much better ‘modernization’ of the Water
Act than is being offered in the new Water Sustainability Act. For any Water Sustainability Act to be ‘sustainable’, it must be re-written
(as I’ve suggested above) in a way that affirms public, democratic control over water and rigorous environmental protections for water
that are based on the needs of the eco-system and all water users, not just the narrow interests of a few privileged ‘owners’.
I must add to the comments below about enforceable standards that clear priorities in allocation must be stated and include : Water for the vital requirements of human consumption, growing food and meeting the needs of local ecosystems; to a slightly less vital degree capturing energy. All of these need to be in terms of meeting LOCAL/REGIONAL needs.These must be ENSHRINED and rendered operational, as the explicit top priorities in any new act. Involving local/regional stakeholders as advisory bodies is also key, both for making appropriate decisions and getting “buy-in”. The possibility of highly defined rights trading as you describe is not necessarily unacceptable, however only as one mechanism that meets the tests of enforceable standards supporting the assertions above.
We are facing converging global crises in water, energy and food. Water is central to all of these and the WSA must look forward realistically beyond the expediency of lightening the administrative and regulatory burden on the public sector. This is an issue and a time when looming problems do NOT represent “opportunities” to trim responsibility for the commons in favor of the corporate model and the ideology of the free market. We must not create a public liability in favor of remote corporate ownership of water rights for any purpose.
Section 5.1. of the Act mentions “tradable” permits, e.g. water markets, but gives no specifics. What does this mean?
I have my suspicions despite the governments promises of “no privatization” of the public resource.
i’m strongly opposed to the WSA. it’s a trojan horse. Water is a publiv right for all and the WSA leads canadians down the path of corporate hostage taking of our precious resource.
mag
In addition to adopting standards, rather than a weak obligation to “consider”, we are disappointed by the suggestion that instream flows will only be “considered” in respect of new licences going forward. Environmental flows should have priority over existing licences, as well as new licences. “Beneficial flow” should be defined to make this priority clear and general obligations on maintaining instream flow should be legislated, rather than merely included in licence conditions.
Absolutely we support protection for instream flows. However, the requirement that these flows simply be “considered when water is allocated” is very weak legal protection. In the original Water Act Modernization discussion paper you consulted the public on whether they would prefer enforceable standards or mere guidelines which had to be considered. According to the report on engagement, “Of those who commented, a strong majority of respondents expressed a preference for standards, with many suggesting that guidelines are too flexible or otherwise not enforceable.” This strong statement has been downgraded in the WSA Discussion Document to “Support for both guidelines and standards – preference for standards.”
This desire for enforceable standards seems to be consistent with the recent poll by the World Wildlife Fund on British Columbian’s attitude towards water: http://wwf.ca/newsroom/?8501/Majority-Want-Greater-Protection-for-BCs-Fresh-Water-Resources.
So yes, definitely in favour of protection of instream flow. But a mere promise to consider such flows in government decisions doesn’t cut it.
Hear, hear WCEL – definitely need to place environmental flows ahead of oldest licenses. Just because someone got to the bus seat first doesn’t mean he shouldn’t give it up to the pregnant lady.