Enable a Range of Governance Approaches
One of the clearest messages we heard during our first round of engagement was that one approach to water governance will not work for all regions of BC. Our province is too large, too geographically and hydrologically diverse, and the needs of each community and region too varied to apply a ‘one size fits all’ governance approach. We also heard that you want more opportunities to participate in decisions.
The Policy Proposal on BC’s new Water Sustainability Act includes a range of governance approaches to increase collaboration and participation in decisions and activities. For example, the Act would provide the ability to delegate responsibility for some activities and decisions where there is interest and capacity. It will be important not to create a fragmented governance system across the province. The key will be to build on the area-based framework, allow for flexibility, and respond to local conditions, interests and specific water management issues. This is really driven by a desire for more participation, increased transparency and achieving a balance that serves all British Columbians.
In the video below, Ted White explains.
What is your take on enabling a range of governance approaches? Will having a range of approaches achieve the balance required for a sustainable future? Let us know with your comments and questions.
Top
Just read following article in the Tyee. Will water sustainablity act ensure that other government departments do not assume responsiblity for water such as is reportedly the current practice in BC?
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/15/OurWaterSuckedAway/
Without air, water, earth there is no life. Unfortunately, these basic elements have be taken for granted for far too long. Water for instance is often wasted for “entertainment” purposes and too often abused by indutries because of weak legislation.
I oppose the proposal of making water a commodity left in the hands of private insterests. However in view of the constant abuse that has been made of this essential resource and eventhough we may be blessed here on the west coast with an apparent endless abundance of it, I would support a system that would allocate a basic amount and charge for excessive use.
Here’s an opportunity to set an example for the rest of the world. The construction industry should be directed to build new developments based on higher standards that encourage water conservation and protection. Simple things like enforcing smaller toilet reservoirs would be a good start. We are a new “community”, 150 years old, and everything we build should be state-of-the-art. We should also tap in ancient traditions for inspiration and guidance as to what “mentality” is reflected in our new legislations. A new Act for sustainable use of water should reflect an awareness that what we decide now will affect the future generations. Future generations should be able to look back and think that we did everything we could based on our knowledge and available technology to protect them. This is a legacy act. First Nations have good things to say in that respect and should definitely be consulted.
What about education? What about health? Economics and private lobby groups are of course always included and consulted. This should not be a legislation introduced solely by the Ministry of Environment. This is a multi-dimensional project that will have long term consequences and therefore needs many more levels of involment and an “across the board support sysytem” including the citizens.
Also looking at this issue from a strictly “west coast” perspective is a sign that we have yet to assimilate the fact that our decisions HERE affects people globally. Let us be the models and the example to follow. I don’t see anything new, innovative or creative and the proposed act. I see a very introverted approach. We have a global responsibility and not just a right to take 3 showers a day if we please. That’s not a right, that’s an abuse. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns, I look forward to seeing that you have actually listened.
In my opinion the proposed water Sustainablity Act (WSA) is moving away from a prescriptive approach in that of the current Water Act to broader results based approach, like the current Forest and Range Practices Act. This border approach will give the water act and our province greater flexibility. It will give the province the power to deal with specific situations for specific areas. This will be important as British Columbia is so highly diversified on a social and environmental level.
The biggest problem that I can foresee to the proposed WSA is accountability. The proposed act states how licensees must be held accountable for their actions and how they will be penalized if water quality is not somewhat maintained or improved. It also states that license will need to report data findings to the government. In my opinion this cannot and will not work. To find true quantifiable results there needs to be a third party involved via regular audits. These audits will then cost time and tax payer’s dollars. The government needs to be careful when outlining their future plans and objectives for the WSA as it may create unwanted red tape as well as future costs. I am not saying licenses should not be held accountable, but that for the system to meet its objective of being transparent a third party will be needed, to quantify future water quality.
The idea for Agricultural Water Reserves (AWRs) raises many questions and concerns that will need to be addressed. I would like to know more about the following.
• Will AWRs be area based and separate from ALR areas?
• Where will this area come from if so?
• Would entire watersheds be considered AWRs?
• How will AWRs affect forestry and other industries that operate near or around existing ALR?
• How will these areas be regulated?
• Will recreational activities be limited or even forbidden in theses area?
In redrafting the Waters Act we must recognize our true needs and enshrine those rights of nature and the public interest that protect the ecology and ensure that any economic interest in these water is based upon ecological principles.
A requirement in the Act should be that groundwater and aquifer mapping must accompany licence application by any industry such as coal or other mineral mining.
I sent in my comments yesterday March 13 and it appears that you did not accept them or you did nor receive them could you let me what has happened.
Jim Culp
Jim, 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. Thank you for getting involved!
I do not agree with this policy. You are opening up the possibility of local goverance bodies or certain communities ‘selling’ their rights to water to other groups for profit. If Aboriginal communities claim water rights on already ceded traditional land, that is acceptable. However many Aboriginal communities need infrastructure to bring clean drinking water into communities, as it is put in this document, water is being negotiated as a ‘treaty right’. This is alot of rhetoric without substanance of policy objectives. Too many broadstrokes and not enough minute details. I do not want my water sold off to California for profit, or access to any other group. This province has been sold off and we are paying for it.
ForestEthics commends the government on taking a leadership role in amending the Water Act. This is a welcomed opportunity to establish legislation that will ensure drinking water, fish, and wildlife have been identified as priority values for British Columbians, above and beyond industrial uses (per McCallister Opinion Research poll in November 2010: http://assets.wwf.ca/downloads/bc_water_polling_summary___nov_2010_2.pdf).
The Water Sustainability Act must be rigourous enough to ensure that activities such as from the oil and gas sector, do not impact water flow, water quality, and subsequently affect drinking water, fish, and wildlife. The current WSA policy framework does not contain enough detail to assess how these values will be protected, particularly with respect to oil and gas development. ForestEthics strongly recommends that the draft Water Sustainability Act is available for public review and comment, so the public can assess whether specific concerns are addressed in the proposed legislation.
For example, we look forward to more details of how local governance will be reflected in the new Act. The ability for residents who would be impacted and/or affected by water usage and withdrawals to engage in a meaningful process to determine equitable water use and allocation must be a foundation for the new Water Sustainability Act.
The Auditor General’s report last year identified a lack of knowledge on our groundwater resources. More information is required on the impacts to groundwater and aquifers that de-watering and hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas causes. This further underlines the need for precautionary and rigorous regulation of groundwater.
Regulating water usage and withdrawals from surface water for hydraulic fracturing is another key concern that must be addressed. Water usage should be licensed, not allocated through short-term water approvals. Permitting and oversight of water users should be the sole responsibility of Minstry of Environment for all sectors, and not devolved to sector-specific institutions like the Oil and Gas Commission.
Finally, as one example of many that we experienced this past summer, one of the driest on record, why precautionary approach to water management is important – the Skeena region of the province was also issued a low-stream flow advisory early in the season this past summer. The impacts to juvenile fish during a low-flow season will not be fully understood until these fish return as adults to spawn a few years later. Thus, the need for government to err on the side of precautionary management when it comes to fresh water resources managed for fish and wildlife is underscored.
An effective Water Sustainability Act must prioritize protection of drinking water, fish and wildlife. Implementation of the new act must ensure local communities must have meaningful input into how the water resources in their areas will be managed; groundwater and surface water must be managed with a precautionary approach; and the Ministry of Environment must be hold full authority for compliance and permitting under the Water Sustainability Act.
The Pembina Institute and ForestEthics have welcomed the B.C. government’s effort to modernize the Water Act. It is a real opportunity to strengthen the way in which we protect and manage our water resources in British Columbia.
As organizations that have been examining the impact of energy developments on water resources in the province, we know that the processes for extracting natural gas are becoming increasingly reliant on water resources in B.C. This is leading to increasing threats to the quality and availability of B.C.’s water. In this light, we prepared a submission to the Water Act Modernization process setting out our concerns and recommending solutions to address the issues.
We have reviewed the proposed Water Sustainability Act Policy Proposal, and are dismayed that the current proposal leaves virtually all of our concerns unaddressed.
Our overarching concern is that the water impacts posed by natural gas development in British Columbia are substantial, increasing, and inadequately monitored and regulated. Water use by the natural gas industry, particularly for hydraulic fracturing to extract unconventional gas, and most prominently shale gas, is on the rise. The impact of such practices on surface and subsurface water is of equal concern. There is broad public concern about the practice of hydraulic fracturing, evidenced most recently by the government of Quebec halting any new hydraulic fracturing pending the completion of health and environmental impact studies.
The B.C. government currently permits hydraulic fracturing, despite concerns about the unique challenges presented by the gas industry in terms of water use, water contamination and water disposal. While our concerns are outlined comprehensively in our submission in May 2010, we would summarize them briefly as:
1. Substantial water withdrawals. Water impacts by the natural gas industry, particularly for shale gas development, come in the form of significant water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing. According to a report from B.C.’s Oil and Gas Commission, the oil and gas sector was permitted to use (and contaminate) 86 billion litres of surface water in 2009 alone, and would thus not be regulated under the new ground water regulation. Annual groundwater use was not reported, but is a small fraction of the 86 billion litres based lifetime groundwater well production for natural gas (6.6 billion litres).
Some of these withdrawals are licensed, but much of the activity takes place through temporary short term approvals authorized by the Oil and Gas Commission, not by the Ministry of the Environment. Last year, we found that while there were only nine active water licences by industry, there were over 1,100 short-term water approvals. In our view, this approach to water use amounts to a loophole around the licencing process, and authorizes levels of water use that could compromise ecosystems and/or other uses.
This combines with the fact that that there are many other untracked means by which the industry accesses water for fracturing. Some examples include private arrangements with landowners, either drawing from their licences or from water found on private property; digging borrow pits into the land which are then left to infill with water which is then pumped out for fracturing. In one case we are aware of, a borrow pit that is 500 metres by 200 metres by 13 metres deep has been permitted under the Land Act (not under the Water Act). These are just two examples of other water sources used by industry that would not be captured or tracked either under the current Water Act or the proposed Water Sustainability Act.
These issues are further complicated by the fact northeast B.C. has frequently experienced drought conditions in recent years, including a severe drought in 2010. If such conditions persist in the future, demands from the natural gas sector will increasingly be at odds with ecosystem needs and the demands from other users.
2. Potential for water contamination. Hydraulic fracturing involves mixing sand, chemicals and additives with large quantities of water and injecting it into the ground in order to stimulate, or break open, the rock formations that trap natural gas. The use of this technique to extract unconventional gas poses threats to water resources during fracturing, and during the temporary storage, transportation, and disposal of produced, or contaminated, water. While fracturing and disposal may occur sufficiently far below freshwater aquifers to not present a problem, the B.C. Auditor General made clear in a December 2010 report that B.C. has a very poor understanding of groundwater resources, meaning that when chemicals and contaminated water are injected underground, our understanding of where they will travel is limited.
Fears about water contamination are heightened because there are currently no requirements to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia. In the United States, governments in gas producing states such as Wyoming and Colorado are now requiring companies to report this information.
3. Questions about government oversight exist. There are questions about the level and adequacy of oversight of the Oil and Gas Commission with regard to gas development in B.C. Again, a February 2010 Auditor General Report found serious shortcomings with the Oil and Gas Commission’s oversight of contaminated sites that are the responsibility of oil and gas companies. This combined with chronic concerns about compliance and enforcement, leaves little confidence that there is adequate oversight of the large quantities of water that are used in hydraulic fracturing.
While we laud many of the components of the Policy Proposal, we echo the concerns of our colleagues who have indicated that the Proposal must go farther to protect water resources. Specifically, we are asking you to design the Water Sustainability Act to directly address the concerns we have outlined above. All three are significant based on current levels of activity, and they will be exacerbated by the substantial increases in shale gas development that are anticipated this decade.
The current approach of leaving oversight for water withdrawals for natural gas industry use to the Oil and Gas Commission is unsatisfactory – the role of the Ministry of Environment in water stewardship must be restored and strengthened. Indeed, in our review of the Policy Proposal, we only found one reference to natural gas industry uses – in Part 2 regarding how provincial water objectives will align statutory decision makers under different statutes, including the Oil and Gas Activities Act. The Water Sustainability Act must do more to address all of the issues associated with natural gas development, not merely align with different decision making authorities.
We are hopeful that the Policy Proposal is still in early enough stages that important changes can be made to ensure that the B.C. government’s approach to regulating water use by the natural gas industry is appropriately rigorous.
Water is a fundamental requirement for life and it is the government’s responsibility to protect people’s access to it. Our water must remain in public hands. It is a disastrous policy to allow private companies to get control (for a profit motive) of such a vital resource. I am strongly opposed to run-of-river power projects which disrupt and destroy natural water systems needed by wildlife.
S.Turner
Water use is becoming of critical importance in B.C. Please consider these comments thoroughly and plan for future long-term water health in the province.
1. Stream and watershed protection and instream flow standards are of the greatest importance. Maintaining instream flows at varying levels during the year allows for adequate conditions for fish and wildlife survival. Maintenance of instream flows must be a requirement of the new Act to ensure that they meet the needs of the ecosystems that depend on the stream and their associated riparian habitat.
2.Regulate and monitor groundwater use, and protect it from harmful discharges and contamination from sewage, pesticides, etc.
3. Remove references to creation of Water Markets. The Water Act MUST ensure that water use is allocated to the most important users first – ecosystems (fish -bearing streams, wetlands); drinking water; agriculture. Water Licences should not be allowed to be traded as a commodity.
4. Water Licences need to be granted for much shorter periods than the current 40 years. This would make future adjustments easier to implement, especially since global warming is altering climate patterns .
5. Wetlands need to have very specific protections put in place under the new Act. As well as their importance to the ecosystem, they can function importantly for flood control and are natural purification systems for waste water and runoff.
Water resouces are a human right. I do not agree with our water resources becoming a commodity or being subjected to free trade agreements, hidden behind private makets. I would like to see strong public policy that determines water use priorities, and regulations that encourages development of the local economies and ensures public control, accountablity and protects the enviroment. Privatization removes public control over conservation and distribution. Ground water resources must be protected and recognized as a basic human right.
I disagree with the privatization of water, and in essence the BC’s Water Act “modernization” isn’t designed to support the environment or public interest. It is wrong for a public resource to be converted into a tradable economic right. The only ones who win are large corporate interests.
It seems reasonable that districts with distinct characteristics need to be addressed differently. However, it seems to me to be mandatory that any governance needs to be underpinned with strong language which guards the inalienable right of all people to clean, fresh water; that this water be owned by the commons, not an individual or corporation and that all citizens are charged with ensuring that they are responsible to manage this essential resources in a sustainable fashion. Our water sources must not be privatized in any way, shape or form.
BC’s Water Act “modernization” is just a way to give a public good away to corporate interests while at the same time “watering down” strong legal protection for environmental flows to mere considerations. This Act delivers BC’s water to “market forces” i.e privatizing our water, which is a human right, This Act is against the public interest and is a betrayal of the public trust.
The government grants businesses a “license” to use water which it can revoke or change without legal action being taken against it by the licensee. This would change under this Act. The people of BC did not vote for this.
Hands off our water, it is a public good.
I am very disappointed to hear that Canada, known to be one of the top ten countries to live in, doesn’t view water as a human right. Its a necessity for life. A human can only survive 3-5 days without water. Thats not an optional need.
And not only that but a country that prides itself on being Canadian and having our own distinct culture. And B.C. the province that lives our own unique way of life. This relaxed coastal life with a diverse people and land. Its something I’ve loved about living here ever since I was a little girl. I hate that we are constantly becoming more and more like the United States. A country that is declining in power and constantly disappointing.
I thought I would never want to leave B.C. but the farther we go with taking human rights like water and losing our identity along with those decisions I mourn what was and wonder about moving away.
Please give consideration to making the laws and regulations that govern water in BC uniform and enforceable on both public and private lands. This is particularly important on Vancouver Island where we must contend with the E & N land grant legacy and its effects on all matters pertaining to natural resources, ecosystems and water. The public interest has not been well served by this colonial relic.
Wholesale forest clearcuts, while they may (or may not) adhere to the rules established by the Private Managed Forest Land Owners Council and corporate certification bodies such as the Sustainable Forest Initiative, do not take into account water-basin wide management nor the compounding and cumulative effects of impacts on drainages by multiple private operators with a variety of agendas.
Southern Vancouver Island continues to experience an ongoing catastrophic decline in water quality and quantity because there is no common public oversight of watersheds. More than ever, the public interest requires a governance structure that takes into account the many values and services not now being recognized but on which all communities (ecological and human) depend.
The “water lens” is a great way to bring about a uniformity of purpose with comprehensive solutions that address our holistic environment. Our collective health and security (and even our economy) depend on it.
All water resources must be maintained as public assets, so a private interest entity cannot restrict access to them for future generations. Selling something to make a quick buck might help now, but it’s like shooting your foot off with a view to the future.
Yes, it is time to modernize the Water Act – things have changed: like this website describes, “with changes in climate, population, and water use, it is now time to review the Act to address new pressures on water.” There are many strong/good ideas contained within the proposal of modernizing the Act (i.e. groundwater regulation, protecting stream health and aquatic environments, measuring and reporting requirements, area-based framework, etc.). I particularly like the concept of recognizing the ecosystem as a legitimate user of water – amazing how only now, in 2011, we are recognizing this concept.
I would like to encourage the policy makers to be absolutely strict in incorporating leading thoughts and practices from other jurisdictions – let’s listen to those who have “been there, done that.” Let’s listen to their success stories, but perhaps more importantly, their failures – and incorporate the strong features/themes into the new Act.
I hope the Water Science Strategy is a success – information exchange of water related knowledge is critical to making the right choices for the modernization of the Water Act. Continue to encourage the dialogue throughout the implementation of this Act, but also keep up with it in the future. Our population and our climate will only change, so we may as well keep things current and evolving to fit the needs of both.
I particularly like the idea of incorporating a staged approach to water during times of scarcity. I believe this relates to education and encouraging conservation. Hopefully this can lead to a more conservation minded community/society that will develop good conservation habits during the whole year, rather than just during times of scarcity. After living in Australia for five years I can definitely say that my outlook on water conservation has changed, and it all started with wondering what exactly that “Water Restrictions: Stage 3” sign meant?
However, with all these seemingly positive changes, I do not agree with water as a tradable commodity. The discussion of water trading and water markets is not prevalent enough in this proposal – it is a terribly important topic and one that apparently needs much more research before we consider anything of the like. The Technical Background Report states that the impact of water markets on rural agricultural communities in not always well understood – if this is the case, then it should not be a part of this Act. Uncertainty with something like water is not acceptable – how can there be any room for error? The 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada (“Going With the Flow? Evolving Water Allocations and the Potential and Limit of Water Markets in Canada”, available on this website) recommends that policy makers and stakeholders exploring the role of markets in water allocation should promote dialogue on the role of markets in water allocation and reallocation – I do not feel that this has been the case. The proof that this is a reasonable or good option for BC just isn’t there – it is too risky.
So NO DETAILS on governance models.
No sense asking questions here as none are being answered.
I can only reiterate that the public must see the draft WSA legislation for details on any and all aspects of the new act. And of course we won’t really know until MNRO goes behind closed doors to write the new Regulations for the act with industry stakeholders.
I’ll call one last time here for a public vote (referendum) to be held on the new act.
Everyone can also contact their MLA and ask them to notify the public when the draft legislation is presented to the legislature.
For what it is worth, I also request that MoE or MNRO contact all those who have commented here when the draft legislation is introduced.
As much as people won’t want to hear this, I think that water is a resource that we are blessed to have and as such, I believe that it should not be wasted or squandered. Charging the consumer for consumption, over and above a basic free allotment is a great idea. Why should all of society pay when the wasteful few choose not to care.
I would also that that I am entirely opposed to selling water rights to corporations in any manner. As the saying goes, we are opening Pandora’s box. So many times in history we have pursued courses of action, on shortsightedness, and it came back to haunt us: please do not let this be one of those times. A great mind once remarked, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over.” Water is the most valuable resource on earth, let’s not lose control of it.
Thank you,
Karl
To Whom It May Concern;
I am opposed to the selling of water for private for-profit uses by any person or company. Water, like the air we breathe is a necessity of life and like the quality of the air in our country, government has maintained that it is crucial to ensure clean air. So too, government should continue to endeavour to ensure the quality of water for all its citizens in a not for profit manner. Water like the air we breathe is not a commodity to sell.
Sincerely, l.cloutier