Provincial Water Objectives and the Land – Water connection
All activities within a watershed have the potential to affect water – its quality, its quantity and when it’s available.
In BC, decisions on how land and water are used are made under a number of different laws, including the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Land Act, and the Water Act. However, in decision-making, consistency is key. Provincial Water Objectives will help provide a common “water lens” for decision makers across natural resource sectors and for all regions of BC. They will help guide how decision makers consider water in decisions, and will increase consistency in water management across BC.
What are Provincial Water Objectives and how do they protect the environment?
In this video, Ted White explains.
Provincial Water Objectives could include social, economic and environmental considerations for both surface and groundwater and would be measureable. Specific considerations would address water quality, water supply and demand, water access and security and ecological factors.
We’ll go into more detail about Provincial Water Objectives in a future blog post.
Please share your thoughts with us on Provincial Water Objectives and the land-water connection.
Top
Regulate Groundwater Extraction and Use
General Considerations
Groundwater is a critical component of the hydrologic cycle and it is integrally connected to surface water. Groundwater must be managed as part of the entire watershed.
BC is one of the last jurisdictions in North America that does not have a system of groundwater licensing. Groundwater is too valuable a resource for it to continue to be extracted without controls, especially in arid regions where surface supplies are not dependable. In other North American jurisdictions, a user-pays principle has been adopted to recover the expenses associated with monitoring, regulation, and enforcement. For example, a one-time fee can be collected by well drillers from the property owner and passed on to the regulatory agency whenever a new well is drilled or when existing wells are altered (deepened, etc).
OBWB Recommendations
1. Institute a system of licensing for the extraction of groundwater in Priority Areas (consistent with the BC Living Water Smart Plan), and harmonize groundwater and surface water regulations when appropriate. Groundwater and surface water should be administered through the same government office/agency.
o Groundwater licences should specify the allowable use of the water, the total volume of annual extraction, the maximum extraction rate (gal/min or L/min), and conditions on timing of extraction, if any.
o A system of well classification should be developed to differentiate high priority from low priority wells. The following terms and definitions are provided as examples only:
o MAJOR and MINOR wells should be classified according to rate (volume) of extraction, with additional constraints on daily and annual volumes of extraction.
o Wells in SENSITIVE aquifers or locations (those with limited storage or recharge; those with extreme pressure due to large extractions; those with water quality issues; those with drawdown interference effects on adjacent wells or surface streams) should be treated separately. DOMESTIC wells should be defined as serving domestic purposes as currently defined in the Water Act (i.e., “the use of water for household requirements, sanitation, and fire prevention, the watering of domestic animals and poultry and the irrigation of a garden not exceeding 1,012 square metres adjoining and occupied with a dwelling house”).
o All newly drilled MAJOR and SENSITIVE wells should require a licence prior to undertaking extraction. MINOR and DOMESTIC wells, including those used for geothermal systems, should be required to register their well, and even though a licence may not be required, owners should be encouraged to apply for a licence to record their user rights, if any. The cumulative wells from a property (ies) should be taken into account (i.e. Drilling of 15 small wells all over a property shouldn’t be used as a strategy to avoid licensing). Note that all withdrawals from surface waters require licences, although a Quick Licensing system is available for domestic purposes less than 500 gal per day and for irrigation purposes less than 2,500 gal per day.
o All MAJOR and SENSITIVE wells should be subject to metering and reporting requirements to demonstrate conformity with the terms of the licence. Frequency of reporting would depend on extraction volume and use, and could be prescribed in the licence. Groundwater quality in MAJOR and SENSITIVE wells that supply large populations should be tested at least annually by the local health authority. A surcharge could be imposed on non-conforming wells.
o Submission of the driller’s well log is required for all MAJOR, MINOR, SENSITIVE, and DOMESTIC wells that are newly drilled.
2. A system of ‘grandfathering’ of existing wells should be considered
o The terms of the licence for MAJOR and SENSITIVE wells should conform to the requirements of a new licence and should reflect to the greatest degree possible the recent historical use and volume of extraction (e.g., based on data records, well pump capacity or existing water distribution infrastructure). Requests to enhance the capacity beyond the historical use should be handled as a new licence request.
o Submission of a driller’s well log, if available, should be required of all existing wells
o Only MAJOR and SENSITIVE wells should be required to apply for licences. MINOR and DOMESTIC wells do not require a licence, but they should be registered and the submission of a driller’s well log, if available, should be required.
o Existing wells that are not registered as part of the grandfathering process should be registered upon the sale or change of ownership of the property on which the well appears (as part of the Land Title process).
3. Consider requiring all Water Use Plans or Water Management Plans to include groundwater explicitly as a component of the overall strategy to manage water resources in the watershed. Ideally, such plans would:
o be based on the results of an updated supply and demand study,
o create maps of critical groundwater recharge and groundwater-limited areas, so local governments can use these in land-use plans,
o link the plan to regional land-use plans (OCPs, Growth Strategies) so recharge areas are protected and limited-areas are avoided for development, and
o outline the impacts of geothermal activities on aquifer conditions, if pertinent.
In regions with ample groundwater resources, the Plan might simply provide a short paragraph that justifies why groundwater management need not be included in the overall strategy, whereas in groundwater sensitive regions, the Plan should be comprehensive in its treatment of groundwater relative to surface water resources.
Several concerns: Our water is not a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder but must be a legacy for all residents of BC. No private corporation should ever be allowed to gain control of our water to then sell our water back to us at inflated prices.
We need to discourage bottled water plants since city water is at least as good in all our cities and water bottles are an environmental nightmare. The export of water should also be severely limited or even prohibited so we don’t lose control of our own water.
The terms of water licenses, if we must have them, should be short, say five years at the most. Climate and needs are changing rapidly. A much better way of regulating water use would be a consultative process.
Waste not want not!
For centuries we have been at war with water, erradicating wetlands and draining every last drop of it we can find off our properties and into the gutter -only pipe water from somewhere else and spray it back on and then watch it drain away. We are only now regaining our reverance for water and for natural systems.
We need intense public education, smart regulations, and adaptive management – now. We need:
metering
auditing
retrofits
tax incentives
xeriscaping
Grey water use
efficiency minimums for systems and fixtures
usage-based billing
stricter protection of watersheds
accountability for citizens and corporations
long-sightedness
a culture shift away from wasting
to promote and not fear wetlands – wet lands!
to innovate
We need to decriminalize sustainabiliy to allow for innovation. Policy makers need to become familiar with innovative water saving practices being done elsewhere, verify their efficacy, and then allow them to be done here.
It is vital that we keep the management of our water in the public domain. Corporations care about their bottom line and frankly not a whole lot else. When they act otherwise its usually indirectly related to the bottom line and that is business. This mindset is not sustainable and its not a healthy way to look at a resource that is so integral to our wellbeing, our basic survival, and the survival of our biosphere.
Thanks for providing this forum.
As a Senior BC Citizen of long standing I place the highest priority on any legislation regarding use and ownership of water. I subscribe to the proposal of the Council of Canadians that water should be recognized as a basic human right. At the same time I completely reject the principal that a corporation has the same rights as a citizen.
All life is dependent on water, and human beings being composed of approximately sixty percent water are absolutely dependent on water. Consequently water should never become a tradeable commodity to produce profit for any person or organization. Clean water, like clean air is priceless, and any legislation that makes it a marketable product would be completely unjust.
In fact it is my opinion that the existing method of allocating water rights to private individuals or organizations is unjust. Water should be owned in common by all citizens, and any allocation of amounts should be subject to review at all times by a single publicly controled agency of government.
I am appalled, and totally reject the action of the BC Government to give water rights to streams for the purpose of power generation by private corporations as is currently being done. The only right to do this should have remained with the Publicly Owned body of BC Hydro.
I do applaud the government on seeking input, however as with many such initiatives when push comes to shove, large corporations seem to have the edge over private citizens of BC. Decisions to use trout bearing streams which are active sport fishing destinations to be used as tailing ponds for large mining corporations is next to criminal not just poor usage. My cynicism is well grounded due to government decisions in the past and I am very worried that the leopard has not really changed its spots. When big business trumps the ordinary citizen you have a catalyst for significant reaction by voters. Requiring private individuals to curtail their use of water or have imposed expensive recovery systems for ground water while giving the large corporations exemptions due to cost will not be accepted by the public anymore. We have to see that decisions are balanced and fair with regards to private citizens and the business community. Please do not let this old style type of decision making spoil what would otherwise be a valuable and constructive approach.
The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) has reviewed the proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act (WSA), in light of the importance role water plays in the lives of all British Columbians.
BCREA is on record as supporting the modernization of the Water Act. In principle, the Association supports the WSA, with the following qualifications:
• Another round of public consultation is necessary, once the concepts are more fully developed and/or legislation is drafted. Significant changes are proposed, which must be thoroughly examined and tested to minimize unintended consequences and ensure maximum effectiveness.
• Regarding the land-water connection and Provincial Water Objectives, BCREA recommends that private property rights also be considered and protected. When private property is expropriated or its use limited, the owners should be compensated.
Conservation and efficiency are essential to the success of the concepts described in the policy proposal. To help British Columbians make informed household decisions related to water, BCREA has compiled helpful information about products and costs. Visit the Green Tool Kit for REALTORS® (www.greentoolkit.ca/product-renovated.asp) for more information, or http://www.bcrea.bc.ca for more information about BCREA.
Your proposed legislation with respect to groundwater has come up for a lot of discussion at both the Nanaimo Cedar Farmers’ Institute and the community meetings for drafting a new OCP for Area A of the Nanaimo Regional District (Cedar, South Wellington and Cassidy)and the discussion has been negative and the participants have been very upset and angry. A Public Meeting is being held at the Cedar Heritage Centre next week and I expect that there will be a large turnout.
People are almost universally opposed to the idea of turning water into a commodity which can be bought, sold and traded. Water is too valuable and our needs vary over time. This proposed act needs to be re-written in a way that affirms public, democratic control over water and rigorous environmental protections for water that are based on the needs of all water users and are environmentally sensitive.
I do believe in a market driven economic system, but I also believe that the government has to regulate the market when it comes to the basic necessities of life and the protection of the environment.
You can go ahead and pass this legislation and deal with the outrage and demand for change after or listen to the objections from the public and change the principles of the proposed legislation now. I do believe that this is an issue that can turn moderate citizens into anti government protestors. I have been a capitalist and right of centre voter all my life and I am ready to hit the streets.
Mayta
Water objectives would include reducing consumption by individual citizens through tools such as pricing. Corporations should also be subject to incremental water price increases as well. We do not need to provide industry with fixed water rates like what is currently happening with electricity.
Increases in water pricing for industry such as mining and agriculture can spur research and advances in water efficient technology and increased water productivity in agriculture. This will translate to job opportunities in other sectors.
Objectives to increase water efficiency and reduce water consumption for industry can have a large impact on our province’s water footprint. The Province can provide companies with financial incentives to reduce consumption. One example is rewarding companies that demonstrate that they use less water than the volumes or rates specified in issued water licenses.
There is an increasing need to evaluate the overall health of watersheds which often includes a cumulative assessment of the impacts of human activities. The Provincial Water Objectives should not only cover issues like surface runoff from roads or agricultural land, but take more holistic approach by integrating various disciplines such as groundwater. The risk of groundwater contamination in watersheds is increasing because of pressures to develop natural gas projects.
We need integrated baseline studies that consider current, social, economic and environmental conditions, and that assess groundwater and surface water together. We can select key indicators to monitor so that we can measure our progress towards provincial objectives against this baseline.
Baseline studies can evaluate the available water resources for withdrawal without detriment to ecosystem functions and other users, as well as predict the impacts of future human development on these resources.
Financial resources for this kind of undertaking could come from the water licensing process and associated fees. Currently our groundwater resources are not characterized as well as surface water resources. An example of how we can better characterize our groundwater resources is for the government to require groundwater studies to be submitted along with applications for extraction proposals larger than a certain threshold. Licensing fees for domestic drinking water wells can also be used to characterize groundwater resources around residential areas.
Just a thought…and it goes like this:
There is an annual event that is becoming more and more common. The event is the inevitable summer watering bans. Those dreaded days when you must watch your gardens, lawns, in some cases everything green in your yard turn brown. Most people who are on a municipal water system have experienced watering bans in the summer time throughout the province (except maybe Prince Rupert).
At the same time, both Provincial & Federal Health Authorities are insisting we as a population need to eat healthier foods, and get more exercise, get outdoors more often and for longer periods of time.
Recently more and more people seem to be getting interested in growing gardens. Be they small “Salad” gardens, or large “Canning” gardens, growing your own fruits and veggies is widely seen as a rewarding, ecologically responsible, green activity.
Gardening contributes in many different ways to a healthier lifestyle for individuals and families. Even nice flower gardens contribute to the overall health of the people nurturing them through providing an opportunity to pause, and reflect on sheer beauty for a moment.
Here is where the water conservation comes in.
Every household produces so called “gray” water, from doing laundry, bathing, and washing dishes for example. I have heard that each time a person baths or showers, about 45 gallons of water is used!
A shower using 45 gallons of water per person, times 4 people per household, plus another 30 to 50 (?) gallons per load of laundry, plus whatever a dishwasher uses – would be a lot of water!
When we are done with it, this water goes down the drain, and is gone. Where? Who knows. One thing is probable, it isn’t going directly back to the earth in a useful manner.
What if there was a system that could toggle on or off, that re-routes the gray water to a cistern, for use in watering lawns and gardens? I’m sure with a little imagination, it wouldn’t be difficult to build such a system.
People who have gardens, who like to have green lawns, might also be aware that soapy water is one of the greenest and most effective ways to control insects pests in the garden.
People who would convert to a system like this or who may be encouraged to convert by means of a gov’t grant, might represent a significant percentage of the population. This in turn represents an equally significant amount of water.
In terms of possibilities, it is likely that this could be the tip of a very large, very green iceberg.
Yes! I hope that incentives for gray-water systems and rainwater harvesting will be included in provincial policies for reducing water demand.
I really appreciate all efforts to generate feedback on the water act modernization process. Something that is unclear to me is who is paying for this act to translate to action on the ground. All reference to action implementation details that municipal governments will be working with provincial governments on implementation measures. As someone who works on watershed management with a community based non-profit, how do you plan on funding the bottom up half of this integrated approach? It seems as though there is an assumption that municipal governments effectively engage constituents but often they do not have the capacity or resources to do so. Where and how does the support money flow to implement the water modernization act? Thanks for this opportunity to contribute and learn.
I wish to urge an improvement of the process! Public input at this stage of “INTENTION” is, no doubt, helpful to the government, but it does little for the public. In fact due to past experience it fans fear of privatization and sale of water as a commodity – in spite of assurances to the opposite.
THE BC PUBLIC NEEDS AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFTED LEGISLATION BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT DEBATES AND PASSES IT!
WATER IS NOT ONLY A HUMAN RIGHT, BUT IT IS A RIGHT FOR ALL LIFE IN THIS PROVINCE. The life of animals, insects and plants depends on it as much as ours. The web of life is one and we are a part of it.
It is encouraging that the Ministry of Environment is considering the “Land – Water Connection” in establishing its Provincial Water Objectives. Less than 5% of BC’s land-base is farmland, and having access to water for food production is critical in these areas. This needs to be established as a clear provincial objective in the proposed Water Sustainability Act – our children’s children will thank us for it.
Many questions have been asked in comments on the blog. These questions are not being answered which was one of the original stated reasons for the blog.Furthermore the unanswered comments are disappearing from the blog!
The February archives for example only contain the most recent comments.
Where are the comments going? When will we get answers?
You managed to post answers to all the comments on water markets.
I am very interested in many of the questions that have been posed. Please answer specific questions and update your archives so we can go back and read the replies.
There are parts of the water act which are crucial to the current situation. For example, since the sewerage act was scrapped, home owners with their own wells are completely dependent on the 100 foot rule regarding possible contaminating sources. If that disappears or is changed to be even one foot less, then some people will lose their homes, or their property will become worthless. We need to have controls to protect residential wells and the people who use them.
Regarding Michael Krief’s suggestion of making shared wells, or non-financial operations, exempt from the water act. That sounds OK for many reasons, but it could also spell the death of some small communities as they exist now. Since the sewerage act no longer ensures against the possible contamination of your well by a neighbouring septic installation, we are going to need some kind of regulation, if it is not going to be the water act.
I would like to ad to my previous comments the following:
1- Seasonal B&B’s use far less water than residential hook ups
2- Recuperation of rainwater should be considered a large part of the picture.
I would like to point out that the threshold of 2 “points of entry” to be included under the Water Act is very onerous and anti-business for small B&B seasonal operators.
For instance, in the case of a single well serving a couple of lots, quite common where water is scarce or expensive to drill on the West Coast of BC:
1- A B&B with 5 or 6 bedrooms doesn’t fall under the act as it is considered a single family dwelling with a single point of entry.
2- Another B&B with 5 or 6 small cottages falls under the act with weekly water analysis to be transported and other constraints while the operator who lives on the property is the first line of protection in the event of water contamination, no different than a single dwelling with a B&B: Basically unfair.
3- Most of the danger of contamination comes from farming area in low lying wells: on the rocky West Coast of BC, wells are drilled sometimes 600 feet into the bedrock on land completely unsuitable for lifestock etc.
I propose to exempt from the Water Act:
1- Shared wells (non-financial operation where service or water is not sold) serving less than 3 lots or with less than 6 hook ups, (except for surface water and shallow dug wells)
2- Consider a B&B with 5 one bedroom (or less) cottages as one hook up (or one point of entry).
Hello,
I do not support this plan and will vote against it/parties supporting it. Hands off the water!
David