Regulating Groundwater
Groundwater is a vital part of British Columbia’s water resource. In this video, Ted White explains how the proposed Water Sustainability Act will help protect BC’s “hidden treasure”.
Protecting the safety and security of groundwater is essential to our communities. In addition to being used by one in four British Columbians for drinking water, groundwater is also used to help grow our food, and to create our products. In fact, it is estimated that we rank third in groundwater use, behind Ontario and Quebec.
Groundwater and surface water are often interconnected. Groundwater provides cold water flow to sustain streamflow during dry periods. Groundwater levels also help sustain wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems. Unlike surface water, groundwater use is not currently regulated under the Water Act. This isn’t fair, nor is it sustainable.
Regulating groundwater is one of the main reasons why it’s so important that we modernize the Water Act.
Given the clear linkage between groundwater and surface water, using a consistent approach to regulate both makes the most sense. In a follow up post, we’ll provide more information on how groundwater regulation could work under a new Water Sustainability Act.
In the meantime, please let us know your thoughts.
Top
The matter of rural sprawl is creating concern and uncertainty around groundwater availability and quality. Unless we know what the breadth, depth and replenishing rates are of any given aquifer, how do we know what can be drawn down? Large developments with private wells and septic fields/tanks are a question as well. How do they affect aquifers? A moratorium on rural land development needs to be considered until these questions can be answered. The same applies to those cities with wells for emergency use – what do we know of them? How do they affect neighbouring aquifers/wells?
I’m surprised to hear that BC’s groundwater is unregulated. It’s time to protect British Columbian”s groud water from hazards in the mining and energy sectors.
DONT PRIVITIZE OUR WATER, LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!
WATER IS A RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU GUYS GOING TO START CHARGING FOR AIR NEXT?????
Aman Cheema
Thank you for your good explanations and for seeking public input on our water.
Regarding wam_wsa-policy-proposal.pdf;
“Framework” page 5 “What we heard” omits the clear and ubiquitous “elephant in the room” demand that our water not be privatised, commodified or otherwise given to corporations that will sell it back to us at exorbitant prices (e.g. search for “Cochabamba water”). Water infrastructure must remain in the hands of government, which is somewhat accountable to citizens, not controlled by corporations which are not accountable to citizens. People who object that loss of control over our water and infrastructure couldn’t happen in Canada should note that on March 17, both Abbotsford and Mission councils will debate a P3 plan for water from Stave Lake.
We are aware that our BC & federal governments policies are consistent with Milt Friedman’s “Chicago program” (see “The End of America; a letter of warning to a young patriot” for a concise explanation) and we, the intended victims, of course, strenuously object. We suspect that you Ministry of Environment staff members are being pressured to comply. Please resist. The super-rich will take anything from us and from you that we do not protect.
I do not see protection for aquifer recharge areas. They can be poisoned by mines, pit, quarries, crushers and other industrial activities. Protection for ground water and recharge areas should trump the Mines Act. Aquifers and recharge areas need mapping so they can be protected.
1. Protect Stream Health &… page 8 “What we heard” seems to omit incentives in addition to enforceable standards. “Chicago program” staff cuts must be reversed so compliance & enforcement will not continue to be toothless. C&E must apply to big $corporations more stringently than to small corporations and individuals.
2. Consider Water in Land-Use Decisions; page 9 “What we heard…” “Balance…economic priorities” rings alarm bells about privatisation/commodification of water. Don’t privatise or commodify our water!!! PWOs must trump the Mines Act, F&RPA, O&GAA,etc
3. Regulate Groundwater Use; Page 9; Residents must be allowed to extract a reasonable, modest amount from wells without charge, and an incentive rebate offered for usage below that amount. Incentives for low-flush toilets etc
No License should be required for residential/domestic use for wells delivering less than 20 gpm.
4. Regulate During Scarcity page 10 “What we heard…” makes no distinction between water for livestock production and water for production of fruit and vegetables. According to Ecological Integrity… ed Pimentel et al 2001, producing a pound of beef uses 12,000 gallons of water, whereas producing a pound of potatoes uses only 60 gallons of water. Regulation during scarcity should penalise water used to produce livestock, and should reward the efficient production of fruits and vegetables.
5. Improve Security, Water Use Efficiency, and Conservation; Tradable permits commodify water, which is not acceptable. A system of education, incentives and penalties is needed to encourage efficient use and conservation. Free drinking water for all and food security are paramount.
6. Measure and report; This looks good. Domestic licenses and private domestic well owners should be exempt, except in problem areas, where education and incentives should be used.
7. Enable a Range of Governance Approaches; This looks good. Local control (e.g. water boards) within a watershed or aquifer is most desireable
Many thanks for your work and receptiveness to input from citizens.
One last blog comment.
In talking to the public I still find that a majority are not aware of the possible changes that might be coming to the water act, and what that could mean to them. When I say that it shouldn’t be left to politicians, I would include myself or anyone in particular for that matter. For something that is so fundamental to all life, the concluding Act as well as prevailing federal regulations and trade deals that could affect it, should go to a referendum. This is the perfect time to prepare for that to happen both provincially and federally.
The forums and the blog process have been a good process for identifying the key issues and questions. If the process is done even more democratically transparent in a referendum, I think that you would likely have less complaints and more co-operation in difficult times.
Federally questions could be asked like;
~Should water be a human right?
~Should water be included in Free Trade deals?
~Should the Schedule 2 amendment be repealed?
~Should water or delivery infrastructure be privatized or P3’d?
Provincially you could ask;
~Should water be a human and natures right?
~Should water be marketed or privatized or P3’d?
~Should water be managed with local input?
~Should there be a minimum amount for all before charging?
~Do we need to spend more on regulating and enforcement?
~Should the Water Act prevail over all other Acts?
~Should food production habitat rights be a priorities?
~Should we prepare more storage capacity for times of drought and more population?
This is just an example list and I could go on. The info from the blog and forums could be prioritized by what was brought up the most. People reading this may want to prompt their local representatives to support a referendum?
Thanks Again,
Wendy Bales
Area C Director
FVRD
First and foremost, water needs to be a human and animal right. At a UBCM resource forum last year someone asked MLA then Environment Minister Penner if he would make water a human right, at which he responded no, because there was a cost to infrastructure. So I asked if there could at least be a minimum baseline amount for all (so that the poor and homeless could have some). He said that it would be up to local government as the delivery management would be up to them. Judging from what I have heard from some local government representatives, many wouldn’t want to pay for anyone else’s water delivery or costs. So I wondered if the poor would have to move to more humane district, if they would be lucky enough to find one. That could put unfair pressure on infrastructure costs and water resources in areas that are willing to work out a more humane plan for low income residents and the homeless. In a documentary about water it was reported that soon after Detroit metered their water system over 40 thousand residents were cut off because of lack of payment. This kind of scenario is happening around the world with privatization and creates a huge health hazard. There needs to be standards in all of BC. for lower and fixed incomes.
Water Markets? There is a need to share water with countries and areas that have allowed corporate resource extractions (raiders) with poor environmental standards to devastate water sources. As well as needs that are a result of devastation from natural disasters. It is more important for the longer term outlook and should be a moral obligation to help them restore watersheds and eventually restore clean water for use in the location of need. There are good portable filtration systems and portable filters and purification tablets as at the least partial interim method. We also need to include penalties or trade bans for companies with bad operating standards. (Put in mining terms, “Bad Actors”) Will Canada open the door to more resource disasters or help to discourage them? http://www.canadians.org/trade/documents/Submissions_AbitibiBowater.pdf
On one hand I believe that stewardship needs to be local, but I would not want long term decisions left up to the whim of a limited pool of short term elected officials, some of whom may not have the wisdom, or credentials to assess sustainability for the long term, or may have personal motives. There does need to be an over-riding set of standards that should be guided by what you have heard at water forums, this blog, and by what is best for the affordability and sustainability of the larger population. At a recent Treaty Forum that I was at, I learned that Free Trade deals would also prevail over any Treaty deals for First Nations. Can you clarify if Free Trade will also affect First Nations Water Rights?
I am concerned that corporate interested or cash strapped governments could sell out local sovereignty of water for a quick P3 type of fix, which under Free Trade could in the long run, lead to loss of control over local water sources. At UBCM last year Premier Campbell stated that any projects that are over fifty million would need to be done as P3. The Federal government’s offer of taxpayer funds to Abbotsford’s water infrastructure conditional on P3 system indicates collaborative endorsement from 2 levels of government to privatize water delivery. Similar conditional funding deals are being made for the installation of water meters. It seems that the stage is already being set for water privatization and marketing. Under Free Trade P3 contracts, impacts could be extremely costly to reverse. What may seem on the surface as a quick fix solution could lock us into an unaffordable inhumane future of rising costs. With obvious health risks, that need to be taken into account. Although the outcome of the Water Act process is supposed to be open to public influence, a corporate agenda seems to be already in play. That there are 44 applications in the one district for water marketing, without any accumulative impact studies required is quite alarming. If IPP projects do not go through as Hydro projects, will they have first rights as license holders to reapply to market water? That is a question that I would like answered before going forward.
In order for the new Water Act to work towards true sustainability it has to prevail over all other acts. Other Acts need to be amended now or before the new Water Act can be meaningful toward a more sustainable outcome. As it is there are too many exemptions or loopholes around the current Water Act that don’t take into consideration cumulative impacts, future populations, lack of proper studies, lack of regulating which has been downgraded, and climate change.
From what I have seen, all governments talk about sustainability, but the decisions often have more to do with short term economics. Selling off vital resources that can end up digging us into more debt, higher pricing, and limit progressive sustainable choices if you consider the long term externalities of finite resources. Selling off assets like water delivery to be able to balance short term budgets in order to keep the appearance of financial stability, will only cause more hardship for the next generation. When it comes to water we can’t lower standards that will affect the future sustainability of water systems. Conservation and curtailing costly new projects while priority project review is studied needs to happen for things like aging dams and infrastructure. Public money should be prioritized for public projects in order to keep future affordability and sovereignty.
For years bodies of knowledge of building standards that promote water conservation have been known. Even in some of the most arid climates they have utilized both ancient and progressive methods that could help utilize rainwater and conservation for a more localized system. Standards that are long overdue such as making use of roof rainwater catchments for grey-water uses, pervious surfaces so that water can filter into groundwater for recharge of aquifers that in many areas are depleting and collapsing. Cisterns and more water storage reservoirs need consideration. I find it odd that in a rain-belt we can’t at least do as well as some of the methods use in arid climates.
http://www.ted.com/talks/anupam_mishra_the_ancient_ingenuity_of_water_harvesting.html
Although I have heard sustainability promoted from all government, at the last UBCM they talked about down-grading building standards. Contrarily I would say that better mandatory building standards especially for new city buildings and complexes need to be legislated across the province for all but non habitation buildings. Retrofitting older buildings for catchments and grey-water use could be an economic boost, and could prevent or postpone the need for costly infrastructure to distant watersheds, when planned ahead.
I support that we need protective measures for surface and groundwater supplies. In order to do that we need to have meaningful data that should also consider local residents and respect historical knowledge bases along with more updated studies where needed.
First priority should be a given to water for food, human consumption and wildlife habitat needs. There should also be a choices allowed for rural water users that have already spent considerable money on small water systems, and that also allow for choices of non treated water where viable. There is a large body of studies and evidence of the negative health effects of Chloramines and Fluoride use, so there should be consideration for freedom of choice for at least small systems to start. Although farmers should have priority use when viable, in turn there needs to be a method to monitor, and regulate for preventing excessive runoff pollutants. Schedule 2 designations and Fracking in Community aquifers need to be outlawed before we lose more of our precious potable water sources.
There are many good submissions that I support like CUPE/Council of Canadians, Nelle Maxey, Sherrie Conroy/McConnell Creek Ratepayers to name a few that I can remember of many good ones… I only hope that the current trend of mismanagement, and deregulating is not indicative of what we will see with the new Water Act.
Thank you for your consideration and continuing this blog.
Wendy Bales
Area C Director
FVRD
I left a comment that was critical of the idea of regulating ground water.
Is that not allowed?
Larry, thanks for taking the time to comment. We had a very large volume of comments on the blog to moderate and getting through them all took longer than expected. Your comment is up now.
I do not support the licenseing of all wells. For at least 30 or 40 or more years, well drillers have had to rigister the location of wells they have drilled along with how deep they are and the flow and recovery rates. The government should be maintaining this information so they know how much water is out there and where it is. If wells are registered there should be no need to license them unless extreme amounts of groundwater is being removed.
There should be incentives for water conservation and use of water saving technology.
A regional or watershed approach should be taken to gather information on the amount of groundwater available. An area based approach to water regulation will allow regional and local communities to deal with water issues more effectively. Legislation should be written in such a way that provisions only come into effect when issues become present in the watershed.
If groundwater is to be regulated, then existing agriculture wells should be “grand-fathered” into the new legislation. Water rights should be linked to the ALR and agricultural lands that are used for food production. An Agriculture Water Reserve needs to be developed to go along with all agricultural lands to address water security for food production.
If water purveyers are using groundwater they should be required maintain a system to secure water for agriculture use and to conserve and protect water for agriculture to ensure future food security.
Water the life blood of the planet is the gift given to every living being. As humans we need to conserve and protect our ground water.
Canadian waters should be free of commercial trade. It is not a commodity to be traded. It is for public use and no government has any right to make deals with our water. Keep water out of Free Trade negotiations and the modernization of the BC Water Act is flawed and unreasonable. Monitoring water use is necessary for there is dreadful waste and damage to the aquifers but privatization is NOT the answer. Dont let BC waters go the way of BC rail. Stop selling our rivers and damaging the environment with The Run Of The Rivers sell off.
Water should be a basic human right, nobody can live without water. Water should be protected and a public trust for all living beings and future generations and never be privatized. It is the pillar of life and not a commodity for profit.
It doesn’t matter how much money a municipality thinks it would be saving, it is an illusion. Private companies would not be at all interested in supplying water if there weren’t money to be made so we must never give up ‘our’ rights to ‘our’ water…it is the sustenance of life without which, we will die. Just imagine standing with a glass in front of a well and a man in a suit has one hand on the pump and the other is outstretched for your money. Further to this there is a future prospect of a thirsty person being charged with stealing water. In some states it is now illegal to collect rainwater or re use your ‘grey’ water. P3 water projects are a slippery slope to total control, fight it!
Access to water is a basic human right and has to be available to everyone. To discourage waste a sliding scale should be in place for usage and those who can prove that they are at or below the poverty level should be given consideration. Water should NEVER be privatized!!
The word “sustainability” is overused.
The water cycle is naturally sustainable, and this is one of the wettest places on Earth.
From a legal point of view, British Columbia was created as a Crown Colony on November 19, 1858. It is remembered by the “Douglas Day Act.”
The advantage of becoming a Crown Colony was, among other things, the reception of English law. This meant that the people of BC started out with everything that existed in England at the time, but were free to change and modify the law as they saw fit.
One item of English law that was received, but has never been changed, is the ownership of ground water. English law gave ownership of the water under private property to the owner of that property.
Recent Canadian court cases have mentioned this, and noted that the only remedy an adjacent land owner has is one in nuisance, if the pumping of privately owned water causes physical damage, such as slumping of the ground.
I know there is an argument out there, that title to water was given to the province at the time of Confederation in 1867. However, the province was only given “minerals.” Water is NOT a mineral.
The Province has taken ownership of ground water under Crown land, but does not, nor can it ever own the water under private land, so do not even consider trying to take it.
On Hornby Island, where I live, as well as in the other Gulf Islands, local politicians try to use ground water, and the “scarcity” of it to control people.
We are fed endless horror stories about water shortages around the world. Just like we were fed endless horror stories about how exhaling CO2 would bring on hurricanes, floods and droughts.
Give up. We are smarter than you think.
I definitely agree, we need to protect ground water from being contaminated or destroyed especially with the already foreseen shortages that are predicted. I do however believe that we also need to keep privatization of water out of the modernizing of the water act because it will take away local control and we need more control in order to protect water. Water should be kept as a public right and free to all. Keep water out of free trade. It is our most precious resource.
The Provincial Government’s goal of protecting surface and ground water in British Columbia is laudable. However, the creation of tradable water rights will not move us closer to this objective. On the contrary, opening our limited water resources to market forces will remove public control over conservation and distribution.
Whether the government would like to call this move privatization or not, instituting tradable water rights will create a private market for access, movement and use of water. British Columbians have already noted their opposition to the inclusion of any form water privatization in the Water Sustainability Act. Many respondents have highlighted that water markets will shift regulatory control to private hands, increase the costs of water and threaten ecosystem services. We would like to add three other crucial concerns to this discussion.
First, water markets are subject to market failures by the very nature of the resource they try to control. Evidence indicates that they do not efficiently or justly allocate water across users. In fact, as Harvard researcher Jordi Honey-Roses (2009) explains, there are no successful examples of trading schemes for groundwater resources. This stems in part from an incomplete understanding of aquifers and underground geology, but more importantly from the market’s inability to account for externalities, its tendency to under-price the totality water values, and its propensity to encourage predatory pricing. Even market advocates doubt that tradable rights can preserve resources for in-stream flow and ecosystem services (e.g. Howard Chong & David Sunding, 2006).
Second, water markets are specifically designed to facilitate the movement of water from one location to another, thereby removing essential resources from the local economy and environment. Under BC’s current legislation, water is tied to the land, not to the license holder. It is currently possible, but administratively difficult to move water between basins. However, the Water Sustainability Act’s Technical Background Report suggests that the introduction of water markets will facilitate inter-basin transfers and uproot water from particular geographies: “A more flexible system might allow users to transfer water rights from one appurtenance to another more easily by reducing the government decision making burden and streamlining requirements” (p. 48).
The Technical Background Report goes on to state that markets will “reduce the role of regulators” (p. 48). Allowing private price signals to determine where water is used and disposed of contradicts the tenets of water sustainability and has potentially disastrous consequences for BC’s watersheds.
The third issue of concern is the use of private markets, not public policy, to determine water use priorities. Water markets are promoted as a way to efficiently allocate water between user types – primarily from agriculture to industry, and within agriculture, from low to high-valued crops. Reallocation of water to industry has long-term impacts on the economic viability of rural communities. Research shows that in California’s Central Valley, there are 8 jobs and $170 000 net income lost for each 1000 acre feet of water traded out of agriculture (Honey-Roses, 2009).
How and where we use water shapes the kind of society in which we live and thus should reflect public values. Food security is of major concern in the province and British Columbia has committed to supporting the “development and growth of an economically viable and resilient agriculture and food sector” (BC Agriculture Plan, 2010) – the first pillar of which is expanding local production. Water Markets will impede this commitment by inducing the transfer of access rights from agriculture to urban and industrial use. Such has been the case with the small water markets that now exists in California and Australia. Even Spain’s new and very limited water banking system has resulting in irrigation water being shipped across the country to resorts and golf courses (Rugly, 2009).
Water markets also tend to price out new entrants making it much harder to grow a local food economy. Water rights are subject to predatory pricing, in which rights are horded and withheld from the market to artificially inflate costs. Water prices therefore do not represent the real value of water, but rather the relative scarcity of rights available for sale. This will only further limit access to sectors like agriculture, which are social priorities, but have little ability to pay.
More troubling, water markets may increase consumptions by encouraging license holders to sell previously unused portions of their water allocations. This occurred in Alberta, where senior license holders who traditionally only used 55 percent of their permit brought the remaining 45 percent into use by selling their rights to the highest bidder.
In summary, the public response to water markets reflects British Columbian’s desire to keep water publicly owned and controlled. Water is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. Marketization has been challenged, even from advocates of privatization. It may induce the unregulated transfer of water between watersheds and undermine BC’s ability to advance social priorities. What this province really needs is strong public policy and regulation of water that encourages the development of local economies, ensures public control and accountability and protects the environment – not the sale of our water resources to the highest bidder.
Honey-Roses, J. (2009) Reviewing the arguments for market based approaches to water distribution: a critical assessment for sustainable water management in Spain. Sustainable Development. 17. 357-364
Chong, H. & D. Sunding. (2006) Water Markets and Trading. Annual Review of Environmental Resources. 31. 239-264
The BC Agriculture Plan, 2010: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/Agriculture_Plan/
After absorbing some of the information provided by the Ministry of the Environment, it seems clear that this department of the Government continues in the same narrow minded, short term thinking and profit minded practices that have led this province and this country down the road of “I’m alright Jack, never mind you”. If the idea that we are all in this together, is not at the forefront of policy making and regulatory practices, then there is no hope for our environment and ultimately ourselves. It is simple: WE NEED OUR ENVIRONMENT, IT DOES NOT NEED US. We MUST consider the well being of the planet’s systems first. Without understanding, encouraging and integrating ourselves into the harmonious flow of all that she is, we condemn ourselves.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I vigorously oppose the new changes you are proposing for BC’s Water Act. It doesn’t modernize it, rather it skews it in favour of corporate takeover of OUR (the citizens you are SUPPOSED to be representing) water.
Please reverse this act immediately!
Sincerely,
Dawn Massey
Water is a necessity of life and a public trust. Its value should not be put out for bid by to whomever can pay the most.
Through a policy of urbanization, BC has allowed more people to live in urban areas than can be supplied with water.
Now rules and regulations based upon crowding as many people into the smallest land mass in one of the bigger land mass provinces has led to this artificial crisis, well documented with outrageous stats that in the end are just another excuse to generate government revenue and enrich private individuals/corporations.
One cannot now pollute waterways, dump into watersheds and creeks and rivers pollutants and must allow for riparian zones along water ways. All of this is managed by the Ministry of the Enviornment who of course are the lowest funded ministry.
This is poor planning expertly packaged with voo doo science to further the aims of those who see water as the next gold rush.
it is unthinkable to allow private hands to come in and claim a public good that is essential. Not just for our generation but for the next generations to come. This includes all the individuals on this planet (wildlife etc.) who cannot participate in political decisions that affect their future as well.
Common sense begs us to return to a more equitable way of envisioning our way of consuming and participating—in community, provincially, nationally, and globally.
Water Protection Act, Water Utility Act,Environmental Management Act, Fish Protection Act, Oil and Gas Activities Act, Drainage, Ditch and Dikes Act, Forest and Ranges Practices Act, Parks Act, Dike Maintenance Act, Community Charter, Local Government Act, Drinking Water Protection Act, Environmental Assessment Act, National Parks Act , Navigable Protection Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Canada Water Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act (Canada), International Boundary Waters Treaty Act all are linked to the existing Water Act in some way. Until we see, line by line, the proposed changes to the existing BC Water Act and the draft legislation we will not know what we will be living with in the future. NAFTA, TILMA…..the ACTS go on and on without a whisper of a Food Sustainability Act. Irrigators that produce food will not agree to anything until we see what exactly is proposed. We do appreciate the work the province is doing and hope that meaningful engagement will continue with the agricultural sectors across the province.
I am constantly amazed at the myopic vision of government propositions. The constant “short term gain” type of vision is what has led us to the unsustainable policies that are already in place. Please, as my representative, have respect for this incredible land.
We live in the country with no municipal water in an area with notoriously spotty wells. We particularly depend on a spring which has been continually degraded by an adjacent dairy farm operation which itself has access to huge amounts of irrigation water from the Koksilah River but has no problem degrading our water supply with many manure applications throughout a year and deforestation as it expands pasture land. To charge us for this water supply without protecting it (Right to Farm legislation prevents this probably) and without regard to the money we must spend to supply it to ourselves in the form of pumps, pump house upgrades, pressure tanks, filters and now possibly UV treatment would be onerous. I would not support any government that would not help me protect our right to clean water and then try to make me pay more for it, in the bargain. Bull#**t! is a very appropriate response in this instance.
I am very much against this proposed direction, which would inevitably lead to our government essentially selling OUR WATER to the highest bidder. Giant corporations like Coca-Cola would then own OUR water, and sell it back to us FOR PROFIT. Is this something we really can put up with, let alone desire to implement?
This is insanity. Water is a human right. It’s time that government stopped working for multinational corporations with terrible human rights abuse records, and started working for the people.
You have provided NO details on groundwater regulation. You say, “We think it’s important to explain each piece of the proposed Water Sustainability Act in as much detail as we can.” And then provide this insultingly short, no-detail video.
You do have these details. The Ministry of Environment answered specific questions to the BC Auditor General in a Dec 2010 report regarding how they intend to regulate groundwater. (Google BC Auditor General’s Report on Management of Groundwater Resources in British Columbia)
Here are my notes on this report with details revealed:
This report begins with 3 questions:
• Is the Ministry of Environment’s information about groundwater sufficient to ensure the sustainability of the resource?
• Is groundwater being protected from depletion and contamination and to ensure the viability of the ecosystems it supports?
• Is groundwater access being controlled and do key organizations have the authority needed to take appropriate local responsibility?
The AG’s answer to each of these questions is a resounding NO. Thus he makes 5 recommendations. I have inserted the published Ministry of Environment’s responses following each recommendation.
“We recommend that the Ministry of Environment:
1) Ensure that classification of the province’s aquifers is completed for all priority areas and that the WELLS database is kept up to date. The ministry should also ensure that aquifers are characterized, starting with those classified as having the highest priority.
MoE Response to Recommendation 1:
The Ministry will continue to collaborate and seek
opportunities to leverage external funding with
interested local governments and other agencies to carry out aquifer classification mapping.By 2011, the Ministry will also develop a list of priority areas for aquifer characterization. The Ministry will work with
MNRO on collecting and managing groundwater data.
Phase 2 of the Ground Water Protection Regulation, when enacted will require mandatory submission of well records and minimum reporting standards.”
So MoE says they will look around for money to fund Classification of aquifers in priority areas. This is hardly a positive response to the AG’s question And begs the question of who exactely are these “external funders”? Also note it is only priority areas being considered. So no proactive legislation, just re-active to problem areas, which I presume are those red (yet to be fully defined) areas on the marker pen map in the first video? As to the much more expensive process of Characterization of aquifers, they will get around this year to making a list of which ones need to be characterized. No hint as to when the actual characterization might happen. Keep in mind that all resource extraction and population stimulated development will continue apace prior to anything being done to develope the data needed to actually manage and protect groundwater.
Here is the AG’s discussion of Characterization and Classification of aquifers in BC:
“Aquifer classification
Classification of aquifers in British Columbia began in 1994, based on usage and vulnerability to contamination. One of the main objectives of classification is to provide a framework for subsequent stages of detailed aquifer mapping and assessment (that is, characterization,described below). The total number of aquifers is not known and much of the province has yet to be mapped. To date, 916 across the province have been classified.
Aquifer characterization
Characterizing an aquifer allows much greater understanding of it than can be obtained through classification alone – as well as of the
surrounding watershed and recharge area. Methods of characterization include three-dimensional mapping and water balance assessments that provide more robust data on which to base decisions, although they are
more expensive to conduct than classification.
The characterization work undertaken in British Columbia is limited and has been done on a piecemeal basis primarily by contractors working with local government and academics, often without
provincial government involvement.”
Apparently the government intends to keep it that way!
Here is the information on the WELLS Database from page 12 of the AG’s report:
The ministry maintains a database of groundwater wells (wells that
access aquifers) in the province, referred to as the WELLS database.
Under the Ground Water Protection Regulation, the submission of well records is voluntary. By ministry estimates, there are approximately 200,000 groundwater wells in the province, although only about
100,000 are identified in the WELLS system.
In addition to groundwater wells, oil, gas and geothermal wells drilled in the province have the potential of affecting groundwater quality [and quantity].
However, information on oil and gas wells is maintained separately by the Oil and Gas Commission and is not readily available to ministry staff, and information on geothermal wells is not maintained at the provincial level.
So “Phase 2″ of groundwater regulation (that we are just now hearing about) will at some time in the future require mandatory record keeping on wells. What about the estimated 100,000 that aren’t even on the database now. What about the other 100,000 that are? What about water bottling operations? What about fracking. Why aren’t the Oil and Gas Commission records available to MoE staff? Will they be in the future?
As to funding issues, this is from page 4 of the AG’s report:
“While the Ministry has a number of initiatives underway that will continue [sic] to protect groundwater quality and quantity, to fully
implement the audit recommendations will require substantialadditional funding and staff. Costs associated with upgrading the existing databases for groundwater data and to classify and characterize aquifers are in the order of $4.5 million over the
next five years.
It is difficult to evaluate the financial implications
of consolidating all of the groundwater monitoring information collected in BC. However, database specialists estimate costs of up to $5 million. The implementation of the modernized Water Act will also
have associated costs for data collection, monitoring and reporting,and for the information management and technology.”
This is why I continue to point out that no funding details have been revealed. There is certainly nothing in the latest budget that would suggest $10 is being set aside for groundwater data collection and co-ordination. And this is just the groundwater data. The necessary surface water data collection for proper management decisions would be equally if not more expensive.
The second reccommendation:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Environment:
2) Expand the Provincial Observation Wells Network and review the Provincial Ambient Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network to ensure there is sufficient monitoring of groundwater levels and quality across the province.
MoE Response to Recommendation 2:
The Ministry will continue to implement the recommendations of the 2009 independent review
to expand the Provincial Observation Wells Network in priority aquifers over time. The Ministry will initiate a review of the Ambient Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network in 2011 to help assess groundwater quality in priority areas.”
Again, the AG is calling for these measures so there is “sufficient monitoring of groundwater levels across the province”, while the ministry only intends to do this in “priority aquifers” and only “over time”.
Note the number of new monitoring wells the AG calls for is a minimum number of 50 to 75 while the study actually recommends double that number.
Reccommendation 3:
We recommend that the Ministry of Environment:
3) Take the lead on coordinating the consolidation of all of the groundwater monitoring information collected by provincial ministries and other agencies to reduce duplication of effort and to ensure the best use of limited resources.
MoE Response to Recommendation 3: The Ministry will work with MNRO [Ministry of Natural Resource Operations], the Ministry of Health Services and Regional Health Authorities to explore the feasibility of coordinating the consolidation of groundwater monitoring data collected by various parties.
They are only committing to “explore the feasibility” of coordinating and consolidating groundwater monitoring data. What if it isn’t feasibil (ie, costs too much)? As discussed above, data is the basis of reasonable management decision making. This is not a commitment to good management practices.
Reccommendation 4:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Environment:
4) Develop a groundwater information management strategy that takes into account detailed scientific information and identified trends, and ensure that the information required to support this strategy is collected, analyzed and available through one location.
MoE Response to Recommendation 4:
By 2011, the Ministry will complete the review of the Groundwater Program in collaboration with MNRO. The program review will include the development of
a groundwater information management strategy with associated actions (e.g., seek funding to link databases containing groundwater data, examine the feasibility of consolidating groundwater data in one
location, for those data that meet quality standards, and explore how best to interpret and report groundwater data).
So, they are going to develop a strategy and related actions in 2011. I guess this depends on whether or not it is feasible as determined in response to #3 above? Also note the complicity of MNRO in all of this strategy/policy making. It is particularly worrisome that the “one-stop shop” for resource extraction will be determining not only WHAT data to use but also HOW TO INTERPRET that data.
Reccommendation 5:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Environment:
5) Develop and deploy systems to protect groundwater from depletion and contamination and to ensure the viability of the ecosystems it supports.
MoE Response to Recommendation 5: The Ministry is working to modernize the Water Act by 2012, which will better protect groundwater from depletion and contamination, as well as provide for
the sustainable management of aquatic ecosystems.”
Round in circles we go! Sorry folks, no details on this response to date. If only their other responses confirmed that they will have the data to even know if groundwater is being contaminated or depleted. Perhaps MoE could give us some details on how the Act will protect groundwater from contamination and depletion?
While I agree that our water needs to be protected and conserved I have grave concerns that the wording of the new Water Sustainability Act does not protect water as a public trust and right.
I’ve heard it rumoured at the local level of government, that the province intends to start taxing anyone using a private well for their own drinking water. FYI – Private wells cost families money to maintain already – why would you add to this burden? If this is indeed not just a sick rumour but fact, I would not support such as position and will work hard to oust any government that implements this sort of a tax grab plan.
Additionally, I do NOT support any proposals to commercialize water sales or enable any persons to gain control of BC water supplies for commercial purposes. We must stand vigilant against all who would commercialize the use of water for profit. Due to NAFTA’s “Equal Treatment clause”, we cannot and must not allow one drop of Canadian water to be sold for profit. If we fail to be vigilant in this regard, we lose control of this precious resource and it will become just another commodity, sold to the highest bidders.
Water is as essential as the air we breathe and a natural right. Water is NOT a commodity for profit and any legislative updates must emphasize this fact!
re Groundwater policy in BC: So far I have seen no mention of the practice of hydrofracturing. I suggest that this topic must be addressed in any meaningful policy on groundwater. I think this is an objectionable practice that can irreversibly damage groundwater flows and change water tables and flows. It can ruin functional wells nearby or in the same groundwater flow zone. And worst of all, there are no controls on this practice and even no requirement of the perpetrators to register their actions prior or post fracturing.
We must be skeptical of this Government and demand a truly transparent process in any discussions on water. The “Economic Instruments” in this new Water “Modernization” must be spelled out clearly and discussed in the open with all British Columbians. We must demand to know all the facts before this “vague” Water Act deprives the people of this Province of our right to clean water! Water is our most valuable resource. We will fight to keep our water out of Corporate hands! “Tradable permits” e.g. water markets must be avoided at all costs!!! Lets not be asleep on this!
I am a farmer in the chilliwack area. Access to a cost effective, quality water supply is crucial to my business. We originally used city water but have moved almost 100% to well water. The city did not want using their water any longer. We are using a less quality water supply now and we have to treat it. The government has to realize that all ground water is not the same. We go to a lot of expense to treat our water to make it acceptable to our crops. Charging us additional costs for drawing from ground water would be unfair and would cause us economic hardship. Water in the fraser valley is easy to find. Quality water is extremely hard to find.
Top water scientist calls for continued leadership from BC government on water reforms. See; http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/Treat+water+rights+with+respect+they+deserve/4338152/story.html?cid=megadrop_story
The Powell River Regional District’s Rural Services Committee made the following points during a recent discussion about the Policy Proposal on the new Water Act Modernization:
1. Implementation: the language is vague and does not provide sufficient information about who will be responsible for implementation or what local government’s role will be with respect to this matter.
2. Enforcement: the Province does not have sufficient staff to provide effective enforcement. Will local governments be expected to assume the responsibility for enforcement, as they are expected to do with the Riparian Area Regulations?
3. Conservation: the Province should be encouraging water storage as key to conservation.
David H Geen
As a BC cherry grower with a water license and operating within the ALR it seems only logical that “fitfir” be retained, that a “water reserve be developed to “reserve” sufficient water to allow the sustainability of our ability to produce the high quality fruit our markets demand, and a pre-determined system of water trading accompanied by funds that compensate those that loose production by “releasing” water from forage crops to maintain fruit trees.
As a hydrogeologist, I understand and support the need for groundwater use regulation, and importantly, monitoring and reporting of groundwater use. The proposal for prioritized areas should be proactive and not just based on actual or perceived groundwater problems, but rather, on the overall stress on water resources from the cumulative effects of land-use change, population growth, intensive groundwater use, and climate change. Even though regulation is sorely needed, it’s important to do this right and to learn from the shortcomings of past regulatory efforts in other jurisdictions. For example, some areas that have regulated groundwater use have turned the regulation into a bureacratic permitting system that ultimately issued too many permits, and problems of over-use occurred in spite of regulations put in place to prevent such issues. An important component of effectively-written and implemented regulation will be a committment to funding furhter advances in groundwater science so that sound policy decisions regarding this difficult-to-quantify resource can be made. If one reads the latest literature on groundwter management, it becomes apparent that as a practical matter, “sustainable yield” of groundwater supplies may or may not be achievable, depending on the location and how one chooses to define the word sustainable. My final comment is that the draft legislation including all the details (and any future changes to enacted legislation) should be put out for a full public comment period. The same goes for implementing regulations based on the legislative changes, and also for the issuing of future groundwter use permits (all of these should be subject to a public comment period). Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
The present water licence application fee structure for power production is unreasonable and counterproductive. A standard fee might reasonably be established for projects of a certain size range and type, so there I have no problem with charging applicants $100 for residential power applications up to 50 kW. It makes sense that larger projects are likely to be commercial in nature.
However, to charge a fee 50 times larger for all commercial projects up to 20 MW fails to recognize the existence and benefit of commercial projects that may be much smaller than 20 MW. Campgrounds, ecotourism and snowcat and heli-ski lodges are examples of commercial operations that typically could benefit from hydro plants in the 10 kW to 150 kW range. Their use of hydroelectricity can displace fossil fuel, improve tourism facilities, and reduce utility line losses and the need for new grid infrastructure. It makes no sense to treat such projects the same as multi-megawatt scale project that are built entirely for energy sales revenue.
A $5000 application fee discourages many beneficial projects and destroys the financial viability of smaller ones. There should be a lower fee—on the order of $500—for commercial projects up to 250 kW. Such a fee would be proportional to the residential application fee for power production and recognize the similar social and environmental benefit such projects provide.
Many streams in BC are fully allocated or overallocated for domestic and irrigation consumptive use. As population density throughout the Province increases this circumstance will become more common and conflicts will escalate. Acting as the administrator of BC’s water resources, the Province should create a fair and common sense framework for reallocation where shortage of water would otherwise unduly impact junior licencees. In the Policy Proposal for B.C.s new Water Sustainability Act, it is suggested that “deviation from priority date under exceptional circumstances” would be considered in times of scarcity. I wish to submit the following guidelines for dealing with times of water shortage.
1. Large water licences inherently are more flexible than small ones, so smaller existing licences reasonably should be given higher priority (i.e. 1000 gpd domestic licences should yield proportionately to 500 gpd licences and irrigation licences should give priority to domestic licences). In the event that a nonconsumptive water licence (e.g. for power production) diverts water from a section of a stream containing a consumptive intake, the consumptive licence should be given priority up to proportionality (i.e. the nonconsumptive licencee would reduce diversion until the consumptive licencee has at least the same proportion of her/his licenced allocation).
2. Water licenses with less time constraint on withdrawals should give priority to those with more time constraint (i.e. domestic water licences based on daily consumption should be given priority over irrigation licenses, which are based on seasonal consumption).
3. In all cases where a licencee is required to sacrifice part of his/her water allocation during a water shortage, that licencee should be allowed to determine the method by which water is made available to the licencee receiving the sacrificed water. For example, the sacrificing licencee should be allowed to install a pipe to deliver water directly to the receiving licencee’s intake if the receiving licencee’s intake is inefficient or poorly maintained or if the streambed would otherwise absorb too much of the sacrificed water. In this way the water use will be more efficient and the sacrificing licencee will perceive her/his treatment as fair.
I wish to address the issue of water licencing for small-scale power generation. By that term I refer to residential and small commercial projects that are sized to serve the power needs of the project owner. Homeowners and small business owners apply for licences for power generation because
1. They are off the grid and need an economical and environmentally-responsible means of generating the electricity that other British Columbians take for granted,
2. They wish to be as self-sufficient as possible,
3. They wish to reduce their cost of living or operating their small business by reducing the amount of power they buy from a utility,
4. They wish to contribute as little as possible to their utility’s need to build more capacity, or
5. They wish to avoid the cost and tree-cutting required to bring a powerline extension to their house.
Residential-scale power generation is recognized by BC Hydro, FortisBC and the BC Utilities Commission to be beneficial to the Province, as evidenced by the establishment of net metering programs by both utilities with the blessing of the BCUC.
Water licences for residential and small commercial power production are granted today only after it has been established that the power project will not affect pre-existing water licenses on the stream or interfere with fish or invertebrate populations. These small scale power projects are non-consumptive of water and do not affect water quality.
In the Policy Proposal for B.C.s new Water Sustainability Act, it is mentioned that, “to use water more efficiently…economic instruments will be enabled…” including “increases in water fees and rentals.” I wish to point out that water licencees for power already have every incentive to use water efficiently, since they have to pay for the entire infrastructure of their power source and the cost of that infrastructure rises proportionately to its water-handling capacity. In most cases, the size of the power project is constrained in any event by the amount of water available in the creek or allocated by the water licence. Typically, electric load management must be employed at additional cost on non-grid-connected projects to compensate for the fact that much less power can usually be generated than is routinely made available to utility customers.
Increases in water fees and rentals for small-scale power generation would have no beneficial effect on water use or the environment but would simply be an arbitrary new tax on non-consumptive licencees. Such increases would discourage residential and small commercial development of micro-hydro generation, despite the beneficial effect they have on reducing utility line losses and the need for new grid infrastructure.
You’ll need to rework the proposed legislation to make it impossible to privatize water which should in fact be a human right. Water is not a commodity for any individual or corporation to own in any way and sell for their own profits or the profit of anyone they represent.
I cannot respond to the Water Sustainability Act until I can read a draft copy, for, as they say, “The devil is in the details.” What process will be available to the public to request changes to the draft, should we deem that desirable?
Also, I am curious as to why so many people are concerned about marketing or sale of our water resources? What wording in the background and proposals has given rise to this concern? I too, definitely, do not think that water should become a commodity in BC. I would like an answer from the Water Act Modernization committee, so that we can all be assured that the proposals and new Water Act will not include the possibility of allowing for our water to be sold.
I agree that commenting on the government’s intentions before it is in draft form is like trying to catch fish eggs; they elude the grasp.
However enough rumbles have been released to see where we are heading with this government, and so the best thing people can do is keep on telling it not to betray the common good, as is the direction of ROR projects in the hands of corporate power. NO SELING OR TRADING OFF OUR FRESH WATER, IT BELONGS TO ALL OF LIFE, OUR CHILDREN AND THE FUTURE.
Give it respect; work to lessen consumption, pollution and waste. Factor the basic needs of humans, fish and wildlife and food prodution into every project on the drafting table involving the use or disturbance of fresh water. Above all keep it a public resource, and involve the public meaningfully in the drafting of a new Water Act.
Protect the rivers that give us water. Protect the forests that protect the rivers. Protect the need of agriculture to use water, but wisely.
To even think of making our fresh water a commodity for private profit is reprehensible. Go with the voice of reason, commonsense and the people and work with them towards keeping our fresh water a public blessing into the future.
I also am very concerned for our children and grandchildren the sustainability of our water. What I am more concerned about is the SELLING OFF OF OUR WATER RITES TO THE U.S.
Proper management is crucial and should not be left for Provincial governments to decide.
I support the delegation of local control of water resources. Local water should be controlled by the local municipalities not the Provincial government.
As a farmer, and a person who eats, I am interested in both the use of ground water and water taken out of the aquifer. The water needs of agriculture needs to be taken into account as a high priority. It amazes me that water for flushing toilets may get higher priority than water for growing foods. There are many alternate ways for handling human wastes, but not many for growing plants. The water needs for agricultural food production needs to have a high priority for our food security in British Columbia.
As a resident of Nelson, British Columbia, I am thankful that water is primarily protected as Provincial Park, but I am concerned other sources of water and the long-term protection of these resources.
The new legislation should be more rigorous in its protection of water as a publicly-owned resource. The right of public ownership should be clearly expressed in the preamble and reiterated in the regulation. The legislation and any regulation needs to be clear that water rights are TEMPORARY, and that water is a PUBLIC resource.
The legislation should include a commitment to conducting assessments of watershed function BEFORE new water use allocations (licences) are given. This assessment should prioritize ecological (non-monetary) requirements, then address social requirements, and finally have a clear position on misuse of the resource and to promote the efficient use of water. Legislation needs to enshrine legally establish “minimum” environmental flow standards in each stream system.
Finally, the legislation should address regulations for groundwater extractions in areas with chronic problems of contamination or supply.
Thanks.
I agree with that said below. Your proposal is in the right direction but doesn’t go far enough. It needs to include more regulatory controls with regard to the smaller groundwater extractions in chronic problem areas. This would also be a safeguard for the crucial interconnection of ground and surface waters.
I am happy to see that groundwater use will be partially licensed and licensees will be required to report usage under the modernized water act.
The suggested minimum volume for licensing of 100 cubic meters per day seems very high. I think that in order to get a good picture of the status of groundwater resources and the pressures on them, information on smaller groundwater users is also essential.
This is especially important in areas where there are many small groundwater users in close proximity to one another e.g. gulf islands and other communities not served by a municipal system.
This information will be hugely valuable to us all going forward as we attempt to understand and manage the shared groundwater resources across this province.