A Tsilhqot’in Treasure of Mountains, Rivers and Lakes

vimeo.com/13704214

I am writing as a team member at the Fraser River Discovery Centre and a Vancouver resident interested in the Modernization of BC’s Water Act. I would like to commend the Living Water Smart team for their efforts to date in collecting information and keeping the public informed.

In reading the published documents and blog posts, I have noticed that a primary concern of the public is further opportunity to comment on the Water Sustainability Act before it is legislated next year. We, at the Fraser River Discovery Centre, would like to hold a public forum to give an additional opportunity for those in the Lower Mainland to become educated about Living Water Smart initiatives and provide feedback on the WSA.

We envision that the forum would see a panel of individuals representing a spectrum of sectors (non-profit, industry, local and provincial government, First Nations, academia) provide their perspectives to attendees and be available for a question period. The theme would revolve around one of the key messages from submissions on Water Act Modernization – proactively protect drinking water, food production, clean energy and ecological health – with an emphasis on how individuals can take action in their community. In addition, we plan to compile comments, concerns and questions arising from the evening in an outcome document to be presented to the Living Water Smart team.

We would like to hold the forum during the next phase of public review and welcome any information you may be able to provide regarding this process. We welcome any feedback you may have on the proposed plan.

Sincerely,
Dana McDonald

Aman Cheema

- Prioritize values such as basic human needs (e. g. clean, non-flammable drinking water) and ecologically based flows to protect fish and wildlife.

- Regulate groundwater usage.

- Require oil and gas companies to fall under the same requirements as other users, and apply for a licence from the Ministry of Environment, rather than repeatedly obtaining short-term leases through the oil and gas commission.

- Enable local involvement in water resource planning and management, which will prevent firms from monopolizing the resource.

Please protect the Sacred Headwaters from Royal Dutch Shell’s plans for natural gas drilling.

Thanks you for your time and work,

Clare Kenny

I believe the proposed Water Sustainability Act is a step in the right direction but it needs to take a very strong stance on the issue of integrated action towards stewardship of our province and the planet. There is a rapidly growing body of science on the intimate coupling between the global hydrological cycle, the carbon cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. Current scientific models used by the IPCC and others don’t adequately take this understanding into consideration. We need to act locally and provincially to make the necessary changes in lifestyle and land and water management in an integrated fashion.

Freshwater is an element of life, far too precious and scarce to trade. Only fools would price a resource that is invaluable.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/15/OurWaterSuckedAway/

We provide separate comment on each of the seven Policy Directions listed in the Governments Proposal however most of the Policy Directions are interrelated to the point that we do not view any of the Proposals as stand alone.
Our view comes primarily from one of the “arid” regions of the Province, the Kettle River Basin. The Kettle was joint as # 1 Endangered River in ORCA’s 2010 listing. The Kettle has seen record low flows in 6 of the last 7 years and flows have been on a generally downward trend for the past 70 years or so of record keeping. Despite these low flows, the known consequences to fish and aquatic organisms from high temperatures and low oxygen, Government has continued to approve new withdrawals from the Kettle by ignoring or diminishing environmental effects. Big White’s application to take Kettle water primarily for snow-making and golf course irrigation is a reflection of Governments inadequate management of a Public Resource, as Government invited Big White to apply for the water. See details in our letter to Ministry of Environment, including petition submission: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/pressrelease_openletter_jan2010.pdf
Re Proposal # 1 Protect stream health and aquatic environments.
Despite strong public support for definitive in-stream flow needs, (IFN) Government has apparently decided to use “guidelines” which will be difficult to monitor and enforce and which will be a delayed reactive response to problems already underway.
Any new act should declare absolute IFN’s as the first priority use. B.C’s proposed Water Sustainability will not be sustainable if fish, wildlife and ecosystem needs are not the first priority.
Any new Act that purports to be sustainable must address the problem of range cow use on public lands, which problems and the effect on water and riparian zones is documented in our letter to Ministry of Forests & Range & other Ministries: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/the_problem_with_range_cattle.pdf
Re Proposal # 2 Consider water in land use decisions
Provincial Water Objectives that provide direction to Municipalities, Regional Districts and other users could provide useful direction to decision makers re land and resource issues. A Kettle River example which demonstrates the absurdity of the present situation is an Official Community Plan for the Big White area that strongly encourages Big White to develop golf-course(s) without any meaningful consideration of the ecological and other effects on the Kettle watershed. Such objectives should include metering requirements.
Re Proposal # 3 Regulate groundwater
For 30 years or more a variety of water planning initiatives have strongly recommended ground water licensing. Then as now, B.C. remains the only Province without legislation to protect groundwater. In arid areas, e.g. Okanagan and Kettle basins, all groundwater should be licence including provision for metering. Approval for any extraction in these areas should be limited to basic household needs until existing and potential demand from groundwater and surface water is determined. Government still lacks such data, despite the fact that various planning initiatives have identified such information as essential in any meaningful planning.
The Day Afflum Report on Water Planning in Nov 1990, prepared for the Provincial Government Round Table on the Environment & the Economy, stated; “there are not enough personnel in the Ministry of Environment & other resource agencies to collect and analyze the data necessary to understand the dynamics of river basins and aquifers in the Province, as well as the cumulative effects of development on these systems.” Twenty plus years on, little or no progress and essential data is still missing.
Re Proposal # 4 Regulate during scarcity.
Regulation firstly should address absolute IFN’s for ecological and future ecological needs, (see response to Prop #1).
Despite early indications that the existing allocation principle of first in time, first in rights (FIT) would be reconsidered, Government is now indicating that this principle will remain in place. FIT is a principle that fails to protect environmental/ecosystem needs, societal need or distinguish between beneficial and other water usage. The Government definition of “beneficial” use should establish priority based on:
a. Ecosystem needs
b. Domestic and servicing needs
c. Agricultural needs based on criteria that reflect irrigation type, soil type, crop value & local food needs. Broadcast irrigation for example vs. less wasteful irrigation. Excessive water requirements for low value crops, e.g. hay destined for cattle use. The relative land uses, crop uses and economic contribution (or otherwise) of various usage is investigated in a recent UBC Report, Blue Green & Virtual Water. The implications of such research should be included in priority of use planning.
d. Industrial uses, with criteria that evaluate whether water is returned locally to surface or groundwater in an uncontaminated state. Processes that do not, including water bottling, should not be permitted.
e. Recreational purposes such as snow making and golf course irrigation.
The second imperative is that of fairness. Given existing warming trends the Ministry Of Agriculture has estimated that within 30 years, existing crops will require 30% more irrigation water. Possible global warming scenarios would increase “needs” beyond those estimates. In even the best case scenario, water shortages are bound to increase. FIT (appropriately) never guaranteed permanence or absolute access to water. If FIT remains a first principle, many existing users will be cut off from any access to existing water supplies. Because FIT licences generally reflected the reality of early settlement, priority of licences generally followed settlement patterns from low river valleys and gradual later settlement up river/tributary valleys. FIT never anticipated future shortages when replacing Common Law and FIT is not suited to making equitable judgements in the face of competing needs.
Government should in this process look to phasing out FIT.
Re Proposal #5 Improve security, water use efficiency & conservation.
Three fine buzzwords, substance for which is missing in the Proposal.
Economic instruments and their use needs greater clarification, however the issue of tradable permits is one that should be taken off the table until the issues of supply and existing and potential demand and global warming effects are fully addressed. It is apparent that “tradable licences” which Government misleadingly suggests will help “restore flows”, and provide “flexibility” will mostly do the opposite. Tradable licences will firstly ensure that existing underutilized or unused licences are acquired by those who will use them. Numerous river extraction licences in the Kettle are in that situation in the Kettle including many instances where licence holders have moved extraction points to nearby wells off-stream to acquire “so called groundwater” which does not require a licence. (many reasons for these relocations, but principal reasons, can avoid turbidity, silting and freshet damage from in-river extraction points.)
Tradable licences could therefore enable sale of river extraction licences and ensure that “sleeper” rights become active and further increase shortages.
Re Proposal # 6 Measure and report
New and existing licences of groundwater and surface water should be required to measure and report. Metering should be mandatory where other means of measuring are unavailable.
Re Proposal # 7 enable a range of Government approaches.
Any “range of approaches” needs to be spelled out in detail for further discussion. The value (and costs) of any approaches can only be seen in the details. Government has had significant authority in existing legislation but in many cases has failed to exercise it, e.g. no claim-back of unused licences as was entitled under the requirements of “beneficial” use.
Some commentators have suggested that some of these approaches might include Watershed Management Plans or Water Management Plans. While we were amongst the first to propose a Watershed Management Plan for the Kettle River, we cautioned that any such plan should firstly prioritize ecological effects and consequences and future water demand. It remains to be seen whether the Kettle WMP process includes the broad public participation that might focus on those priorities, or whether the WMP ends up primarily as an exercise in which consumptive (exploitive) “shareholders” end up divvying up a public asset for their own benefit.
Changes are required in any new Act that would prevent water licence applications from being approved that effectively “reserve” future water except where such use is for ecological purposes. In the local example Big White has effectively “reserved” a future supply in advance of development plans that may not be submitted for years to come. As well as making nonsense of the “beneficial” use principle the shortcomings of the existing Act have allowed a “reservation” system that was never intended.
Al Grant for Boundary Environmental Alliance
http://www.boundaryalliance.org

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.

Some clarification and assurances in regards to the implementation of economic instruments in the form of tradable permits have been made recently by the ministry, affirming the the notion that this will not mean the potential for privatization of the resource. However, clarification on just how such markets will avoid becoming controlled by a few large players is unclear. There needs to be a clearer understanding on just how these tools will be implemented post legislation before a proper analysis can be made by those concerned. For instance how will small to medium sized users such as farms in the growing organic foods sector be allotted for as growth takes place? If the entire allocation under the permit is not used by the permit holder can they then hold the option to sell the unused portion of their permit?

Under current legislation pertaining to various sectors such as forestry there is already laws and regulations that mandate the protection of values such water quality and biodiversity. Examples of such legeslation are the fisheries act and the forest range and practices act FRPA, which already force industry to comply with objectives that are parallel to many of those addressed under the newly proposed sustainability act. How will the proposed policy changes and associated processes and guidelines be smoothly integrated with current existing policy without unduly affecting land users and forest licensees? It seems unreasonable to require additional bureaucracy for concerned stakeholders where already compliant and actively addressing areas of concern. Again greater clarification on this area is needed before an appropriate analysis of the effects the proposed legislation can be made by those concerned.

Finally, additional explanation of a potential framework for the integration of lower levels of government into the implementation and enforcement of the new government objectives needs to be provided. The jurisdiction and role that each level of government will play in the implementation of any proposed legislation has the potential to greatly affect all stakeholders concerned.

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.

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

• 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?

• 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?

1. I understand that the FITFIR allocation system has been used in the past, and that people resistant to change, or those who benefit from the FITFIR system may desire that it continue. However I strongly disagree that it is a good method for allocating groundwater or surface water resources. There are other, more sustainable and more forward-looking options.

2. I believe that water pricing should more closely reflect its cost of delivery: infrastructure maintenance can be more easily maintained; effective and appropriate water pricing schedules can encourage water conservation. Relief would, of course, need to be available for those with restricted income.

3. Groundwater and surface water quantity and quality, as well as efficiency should be specifically regulated (and not merely guided / recommended as is the case now).

4. The emphasis on conservation and stream health is encouraging, though not strong enough. The multi-stage approaches and mention of security, and water use efficiency are positive directions. However I am troubled that the policy proposal is still so vague. The blog videos were obviously targeted to a specific audience. Additional information, appropriate for those who work in the water resource industry, should be made available. More concrete details and examples should be provided for further comment, prior to finalizing any document.

Thank you for providing opportunities to comment. Please continue to do so.

Jim Culp

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

Firstly, by creating water markets that essentially gift a public good (water) to a private corporation or individual and then make it a tradeable commodity, the BC government would be PRIVATIZING WATER and turning it into a commodity that can then be sold to the highest bidder. Since water is essential to life and many users depend on it, there’s no justification for gifting ownership of water to a privileged few (such as Independent Power Producers or mining companies) and then making other users pay whatever price the lucky new ‘owners’ of the water decide to charge. Since water is so essential, there would of course be virtually no limit to what the private ‘owners’ could charge. This is an affront to any concept of natural justice or democracy. Because of its uniquely essential nature, water has always been and must continue to be a public good that is publicly controlled by the BC government and managed for the benefit of all users and the environment.

Secondly, the proposed Water Sustainability Act would gut strong legal protections for environmental flows (rules that ensure water takings do not compromise the health of the river/stream ecosystem) and replace them with ‘guidelines’ that merely have to be ‘considered’ when water is being taken from a river/stream. This is clearly a move to de-regulation that will allow private corporations or individuals to exploit water resources for maximum economic benefit while ignoring the health of the ecosystem. How can this possibly be sustainable? One can easily imagine a scenario where a bottled water company would have an economic incentive to squeeze as much water out of a stream as possible, with a passing nod to the environmental flow ‘guidelines’. To de-regulate a public good like water in such a way is grossly irresponsible.

Because the privatization and de-regulation of water are so clearly against the public interest, I demand that: the BC government immediately drop its water markets concept (including the long term/permanent gifting of water rights to certain corporations/individuals and all measures that would facilitate making water a tradeable commodity); the BC government abandon its plan to downgrade legal protections for environmental flows to ‘guidelines’.

The citizens of BC deserve a much better ‘modernization’ of the Water Act than is being offered in the new Water Sustainability Act. For any Water Sustainability Act to be ‘sustainable’, it must be re-written (as I’ve suggested above) in a way that affirms public, democratic control over water and rigorous environmental protections for water that are based on the needs of the eco-system and all water users, not just the narrow interests of a few privileged ‘owners’.

I want your assurance that you will assure the cancellation of those components in the Water Sustainability Act

Were proper and rigorous flow measurements and environmental assessments made of all streams licenced for run-of-river projects?

Just what does “delegation” mean? The right of private companies or individuals to control and market water rights?

You deny that there is any intention of privatizing water. But then that’s what your government said about BC Rail before being elected

I am wary of Liability and Assurance regimes with regard to corporate water use. Look at the re-injection of used, toxic hydraulic fracturing water into deep wells: how are you going to prove they polluted the groundwater used by a house or town 50 kilometers away? The idea is good but big corporations, like Encana or Talisman will ALWAYS find a way to avoid or minimize their responsibility for environmental damage. The current government has provided me with no evidence that it is able to police environmental problems or enforce environmental standards when it has cut budgets in the forestry and environment ministries and changed the rules for the Environmental Appeal Board such that it CANNOT turn down a project,only mitigate potential damage. Just look at the 10 year problem of the one ranch in the Nicola Valley!

Liability and Assurance regimes sounds good but if there is no money or will, it will be window dressing and will not help preserve water for the environment and people of British Columbia.

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 policy directions of resolving First Nations rights and title and moving toward inclusive and collaborative structures is very positive.

Currently water rights are vested in the Crown. The Water Act was written to promote mining, agricultural use, economic development. The government is correct to consider updating the Water Act to deal with multiple use, conflicts between environmental, industrial, agricultural and domestic use, problems which were not present 100 years ago. The consultation process has been well done.

Of utmost importance is to have government regulation of water use in our province. Water is a PUBLIC trust, to be maintained and protected by the provincial government on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The use of “economic instruments and incentives”, such as the trading of water licenses, is an abandonment of public trust to private companies. Water must remain entirely under the jurisdiction and control of the provincial government.

As you indicate, there must be monitoring and measuring of actual water use by large license holders but it must be by using regulatory standardsrather than using guidelines Guidelines as for instream flow, are not sufficient; they can be ignored. The Water Sustainability Act must contain regulatory standards for instream flow, groundwater use, and all water use.

The idea of “an area-based approach for water management” is good – it should be based on watersheds. The wishes of the people living there should be of equal or greater weight than that of interests based outside the watershed, not just “have influence water management and help inform decisions.” And, the environment,(birds, aquatic creatures and land creatures which are part of the aquatic ecosystem), must have first priority for water use.

As is suggested, groundwater must be regulated; it should be based on scientific study, in all areas of the province, not just high priority areas. The extraction of groundwater for oil and gas drilling is especially problematic.
The interaction between groundwater and surface water must be included in groundwater framework, e.g withdrawal of water for hydraulic fracturing, (“fracking”), and the re-injection of slick fracking water back into the ground in deep disposal wells.
The use and disposal of water for hydraulic fracturing is of serious concern. Will Koop has noted that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has granted approval to Talisman Energy at their Lynx Creek site to withdraw, 5000 cubic metres, (1,100,00 imperial gallons or 5,00,000 litres) of water PER DAY, (“24/7 Less Peace in the Peace”, October 2010, http://www.bctwa.org). And that is only one of many wells in the area. That water, after it has been mixed with toxic chemicals, (e.g. benzene) and used for fracking, is then re-injected underground to possibly pollute groundwater used for drinking water from wells, water becoming lakes and streams, etc.

In the Kiskatinaw River watershed, In N.E. B.C., there are 33 water licenses and 13 licensed waterworks authorized by the Ministry of Environment and temporary water withdrawal permits granted for 25 locations by the Oil and Gas Commission. As well, there are 200 oil and gas exploration and development permits and 29 coal mining tenures, which use water. In this watershed there are a total of 1,200 explicit licenses issued,(including the above mentioned). The Water Sustainability Act must provide a legislative framework for the cumulative use of water in watersheds to overcome the current piecemeal approach to water use.
The policy proposal states, “The Province will also determine the compliance and enforcement framework.” It is a great concern that compliance and enforcement tools will not be legislatively based, resulting in weak enforcement.

In sum, the new Water Sustainability Act must:
- consider environmental flow needs first, over industrial use
- the current allocation system, “First in Time, First in Need” must be phased out with the Provincial Government legislatively recognized as stewards of the water, with the ability to allocate water based on a hierarchy of recognized needs, e.g. environment first, domestic use second, agricultural use third and industrial use fourth.
- make sure that information about water use by users must be available to all and decisions made about water must also be transparent.
- have a commitment to meaningful decision-making by local watershed residents
- have a commitment to meaning full decision-making by residents concerning industrial use in nearby watersheds, e.g. concerning run-of-the-river projects.
- address the problem of multiple agencies issuing water licenses and the cumulative effect of all those uses.
- maintain water as a public trust, (no buying or selling of water or water rights)

Sincerely,

M. Tyrwhitt-Drake, Director
On behalf of the Executive, Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1993)

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.

Is that not allowed?

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.

Thanks!

The act definitely needs modernizing, but I don’t believe that this is the right way of going about it.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on this important legislation. A new Water Act must provide a firm foundation to ensure wise decisions on water use for decades to come. Last November, a poll of BC residents indicated 91% of the population believes water is the province’s most important resource and 72% said protection of fish, plants and wildlife should be given priority when decisions are made on water use – even at the risk of slowing economic growth. We request the decision-makers in government keep the results of this poll very much in mind when drafting a new Water Act.

While we are pleased to see language about protecting ecosystem health through instream flow requirements, we are dismayed regarding the recent indication such standards would only be applied as “guidelines” rather than as regulations. We are opposed to any such weakening of the language around the need to have instream flow requirements.

Instream flow requirements must be adequate to protect all species – not merely salmon and trout. It is critical that cumulative impacts are considered when granting water licenses. This is true for individual streams as well as for larger watersheds. For example, in the Pemberton Valley, private power developers are moving up the valley to develop all the available streams for electricity generation. We believe it is not acceptable for every stream in a valley to have its natural flows modified to allow run-of-river development. Rather, to ensure ecosystem protection, only a portion of the streams should be available for such development. Furthermore, on the streams to be developed for electricity generation, instream flow requirements must be adequate to protect all components of the ecosystem. It is hard to believe all species are adequately protected and their habitat not significantly diminished when stream flows on the portion of the creek diverted are reduced to only 5% of the mean annual discharge and impoundments of water upstream are allowed..

The granting of licenses must be accompanied by appropriate long term research to ensure ecosystem integrity is not degraded by water withdrawals. We are also concerned about the length of time for which water licenses are currently granted. Granting a water licence for 40 years seems far too long a time when global warning is likely to reduce water flows in some streams in only a decade or so. The granting of water licenses must be based on data collected in a scientific manner. Before licenses are granted, stream flows should be measured for an adequate period of time and species identified which could be impacted. In addition, it must be clear the renewal of water licenses will be dependent on adequate data which measure water flows, water withdrawals and shows no damage to ecosystem values. We recommend all such data be made available to the public in a timely manner, possibly through a government website.

We are also concerned the old FITFIR (first in time, first in rights) approach to granting water licenses will not be replaced with more appropriate instream flow regulations which place the highest priority on maintaining ecosystem values. We recommend the new Water Act contain a mechanism to allow the old water licenses on streams to evolve into a more contemporary regulatory approach in which instream flow requirements will guarantee sufficient flows for ecosystem maintenance and measures will be taken to protect water quality.

All water withdrawals must be adequately regulated and monitored. We recommend the monitoring of water withdrawals be transparent with data posted on a regular basis to government websites where it can be viewed by the public. Given that water is a public good, the public has a right to know how much is being removed (including from even portions of a stream) for use by industry, agriculture or other purposes.

We strongly support legislation to regulate groundwater withdrawals. Such legislation is long overdue We also support legislation to protect groundwater quality A new Water Act must protect all groundwater from harmful discharges. This is especially important in situations such as where there is potential for fracking water from the shale gas industry to contaminate groundwater. Regulation under the Water Act must take precedence over decisions made by the BC Oil and Gas Commission. In addition, there is an urgent need to acquire more comprehensive data about the quality and quantify of groundwater resources in BC. The government could fund such research by applying appropriate fees for water withdrawals.

It is very important the government maintain control over the allocation of water resources. In this regard, we are opposed to the introduction of any type of water markets in BC. When water markets are developed, it is inevitable that water will flow to those with the deepest pockets and not to those with the greatest needs (e.g., wildlife, small farmers).

Members of our Society had the opportunity to participate in BC Hydro’s Consultative Committee for Water Use Planning for the Coquitlam River. We found this process to be very informative and valuable in assisting all those who participated to gain a better understanding of challenges and benefits that can come from appropriate water allocation. In areas of the province where water resources are scarce, we recommend similar committees be convened in order to address water allocation issues. In the end, the government must maintain the control and ability to regulate use of our water resources in order to ensure that the needs of wildlife and residents of BC can be best met in perpetuity.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Ideally, unused allocations and excess water available on a specific watershed should be placed into an Agriculture Water Reserve, where it can be held and distributed where the need arises. At the very least the proposed Water Sustainability Act should prohibit the trading of agriculture water to other, non agricultural interests.

Economic instruments such as progressively increasing the price per volume the more water is being consumed (block pricing) can be an effective means to curb consumption, but affects those with limited or no disposable income much more significantly than the affluent. It could also negatively affect the ethics of water conservation through it’s inherent social inequity. Agriculture producers of “thirsty” crops (corn, forage, tree fruits, etc.) would see huge effects on their bottom line; this type of pricing regime would also be extremely difficult to implement for private wells. It may be best to reject the use of these tools or to limit their implementation to times of extreme water shortage!

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.

“Water is a common resource. Water is not a property.”

I feel that we should look after our water supply. I stress, our. This water does not belong to a private company, and, in no circumstance should it ever belong to a private company. This water is a natural resource of the Province of British Columbia. In no way should any other level of government, or, any other government at all, have any say it how it is developed. If there is any development, then any cost should be borne by the developers, in total, with no outside help, and the majority of the profits should be returned to the people of British Columbia.

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.

My first suggestion is to drop the word “sustainability” from the title of the act. It is unnecessary and the meaning is not clear. It should go without saying that the government’s objective in managing water is to conserve or “sustain” the resource. Are we going to change all natural resource legislation to include the word “sustainability” or is it only water that has this management objective? There is no need to change the name of the Water Act!

Protect stream health and Aquatic environments

You have my support for this policy direction but I don’t feel it goes far enough. Protecting stream health should include protecting the natural values of free flow and periodic flooding wherever possible. I realize that a lot of us live on flood plains but we should make sure that there is no new development that requires restriction of seasonal floods. In addition there should be more emphasis on protecting water quality and making licensees more responsible for avoiding degradation of water quality. Does the government currently have a comprehensive system for monitoring the quality of ground and surface water in the province?

My main concern here is the reliance on guidelines. I understand the need to have some discretion but from my experience the use of guidelines will only protect stream health and aquatic environments in situations where there is no significant pressure or influence on the decision maker. Being constrained by law protects government managers and allows them to do what is right for the natural environment and for the future.

Enforceable standards are necessary to protect water and the feedback on the discussion paper showed a preference for standards so why are guidelines proposed?

Regulate ground water use

This is a necessary initiative. What is the plan for monitoring and protecting the quality of groundwater?

Regulate during scarcity

I can not support regulation by priority date. I understand that it will be difficult to make the change but this idea is no longer valid. Regulation by importance of use is a more defensible approach but this will require some in depth discussion with the public to reach a common understanding and acceptance of the ranking. Environmental protection and drinking water are obvious priorities but food production requires some definition. If “food production” includes stock watering then there are situations were I don’t agree that this is a priority. I realize that cows need water but there are often a number of options available. Use of local surface water is the cheapest but that doesn’t necessarily make it a high priority use.
Uses with low environmental impact should be given a higher priority.
Within categories of use, the more efficient operations should be given a higher priority. In times of scarcity we can not afford to use water inefficiently.

Economic Instruments

There is a fundamental principle that relates to this section:

No one other than the government on behalf of the public should benefit from the granting or transfer of rights to use a public resource.

I can understand rights to use water for commercial or industrial purposes being for sale by the government to the highest bidder. The public should be compensated whenever anyone uses water to make a profit but what is the justification for allowing individuals or companies to sell water that doesn’t belong to them?

I understand the concept of using pricing to encourage efficient use but what safeguards will be in place to ensure that individuals with limited financial resources will still have access to water during times of scarcity?

Enabling a range of governance approaches

The principle mentioned above has to be kept in mind when delegating responsibility. The responsibility for environmental protection should remain with the provincial government. If this is delegated it becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable. Enforcement of standards contained in legislation is essential to ensure protection of the environment and this function can not be delegated.
In addition the province should retain responsibility for the fair allocation of this limited and valuable public resource.

One last comment on the policy proposal:

This is the first time I have come across the word “incent” . I assume that the author is taking liberties with the English language and creating a verb form of incentive??

Thanks for listening

Keith Monroe

• The proposed WSA does not resolve the inequities of the First In Time First In Right allocation system. Government must develop a progressive allocation system that recognizes rivers, lakes, wetlands and groundwater as legitimate priority users and moves beyond the prior allocation system.

• Fish require “rights” to water.

• The use of “guidelines” regarding instream flow needs for existing licenses rather than enforceable standards. Strong regulations for stream flows are our best insurance against further degradation and new water law must have legislated flows to meet human and environmental needs. Many watersheds are currently over-allocated and existing water law ignored to the detriment of environmental flows and downstream users. The proposed Act fails to protect environmental flows from the 44,000 existing water licenses that clearly require effective monitoring to promote more efficient use of water. Regulatory agencies must undertake a license-compliance and beneficial-use audit of existing water licenses and water use in all areas of critical water shortage.

• The SSBC is opposed to the partial privatization of BC’s water through the use of tradable permits and/or water markets. Water in all its forms is owned as a public resource. Private rights to use water are limited, temporary, and must therefore be subject to conditions that protect the public interest. The WSA must recognize the crucial “public interest” role for government in managing the resource and affirm that licenses are only temporary rights to use the resource and not permanent or property rights.

• Water metering of all large groundwater and surface water users must be considered as a means of conserving and sharing of a scarce resource.

There is much within the proposed WSA that is encouraging, such as groundwater regulation and Provincial Water Objectives. The SSBC maintains, however, that further public consultation is required prior to contentious issues like water markets becoming law.

Greg Gordon
(for) Brian Braidwood
President

The Commons ‘soft path’ solutions should be endorsed (as per Eau Canada and others): conservation as a social responsibility; rainwater, grey water and storm water harvesting; water recycling; municipal and regional district infrastructure investment; local, sustainable food production; ecosystem based protection and restoration of our watersheds.

This blog is not an accessible mainstream public forum. The public consultation period should be further extended with public meetings held throughout the province.

I do not think that corporations or industries should own something that is everyone who lives here’s right to enjoy. Please let us make a responsible decision to protect nature and realize that although nature doesn’t have a lawyer to speak on its’ behalf, that is a living life force that deserves and needs to be protected. As a concerned and responsible citizen and mother I would like to see us all make a responsible decision that is in balance with our needs.

Sincerely,
Opal Blair

The First In Time, First In Right allocation system works well to ensure that if a water user has a license for a certain number of acre feet, new water users have to accept that any new license only takes water that is surplus to the previous licensed user(s) and the amount required for fish on that stream. If a stream is fully allocated no new licenses should be issued. If a drought occurs the first person to have a license on that stream should be the last person to have to quit using his licensed allocation.

Water should not be treated as a commodity and should be treated as a valuable resource. Agricultural use should have the highest priority over other water users and agricultural water should not be traded, sold or allocated for other uses.

Keep British Columbia’s Water off NAFTAs list of purchasable resources. BC’s water is not for sale.

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.

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.

One of the top priorities going forward in the new Water Sustainability Act should be; a BC Water Act that will set standards for all BC waters, whether surface, ground or diffuse, in all areas of the province, rural and urban. BC’s water laws need to protect trans-border rivers, lakes and aquifers (See the Statement of Expectations on the reform of the BC Water Act, endorsed by 29 environmental non-governmental organizations).

Policy Direction – Protect Stream Health and Aquatic Environments

The proposed Water Sustainability Act requires that instream flows be considered when water is allocated. As West Coast Environmental Law pointed out, should this be instated, it would provide extremely weak legal protection. Going forward the Water Sustainability Act needs to directly address the importance of instream flow and groundwater protection by setting clear standards rather than guidelines. Furthermore, these standards need to apply not only to new water licences but also to the existing 44,000 current water licenses in BC. A question to the BC Ministry of Environment is how will the new Act work to improve conditions in those parts of the province where over-allocation has threatened flows? What procedures will be used to amend existing licences in these heavily used watersheds?

Human use and poor management of freshwater resources puts many biological populations that inhabit flow-regulated environments at serious risk. Overuse of diverted water, or the inappropriate diversion of water from a sensitive ecosystem, is a common problem in British Colombia, often harming fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems. Conflicting demands on freshwater resources present a perplexing dilemma for managers of streams and rivers: how much can the natural flow regime be altered while still ensuring population persistence in aquatic and riparian communities?

The solution to this dilemma involves identifying the instream flow needs (i.e. the quantity, timing, and variability of flow required to maintain desired levels of population biomass and biotic diversity). Monitoring and reporting of actual extraction rates should be required for all major licenses. We agree with Living Water Smart (LWS) that measuring and reporting should be a key part of the Policy Proposal on BC’s new Water Sustainability Act; however, water conditions vary considerably around the province. We ask, has the province considered a minimum flow standard to apply to all rivers to save the time and money associated with intensive water use planning processes? Furthermore, are there any plans to phase in over time monitoring and reporting of extraction for all licenses including licenses held by independent power producer projects?

Policy Direction – Regulate Groundwater Use

The failure to regulate groundwater has been one of the biggest gaps in BC water governance. The proposed Water Sustainability Act intends to address this problem stating:

“groundwater extraction and use will be regulated in problem areas and for all large groundwater withdrawals across BC.”

However, the focus on large users and chronic problem areas creates a risk of addressing problems only after they have occurred, rather than preventing problems from occurring (Reference; Comparison: Proposed Water Sustainability Act v. ENGO Statement of Expectations AND Living Water Smart).

Regulation of ground water is more complex than surface water and requires a level of information and scientific understanding largely lacking in BC at the present time. Management of sensitive streams, riparian habitats, and water resources rely on understanding the interactions between groundwater and surface water. Groundwater upwelling directly affects surface water by sustaining stream base flows, providing stable-temperature habitat, and supplying nutrients and inorganic matter.

Dr. Hinch, a fisheries researcher and professor at the University of British Columbia, recently determined that as water temperatures continue to climb (predictions suggest an increase of between 2 and 4 degrees over the next 60 to 80 years), more and more Fraser River salmon are likely to die before they have a chance to spawn (See; Rising temperature in Fraser River affecting Salmon population).
In the face of such predications the importance of groundwater upwelling for providing stable temperature habitats is extremely significant. It is therefore imperative the Water Sustainability Act require groundwater licensing in all areas of the province. The province should revisit its plan to regulate only in ‘priority areas’, as referred to in LWS. If any geographical areas are proposed to be exempted from groundwater licensing requirements, the province must justify the exemption through scientifically derived criteria (See; Groundwater and healthy salmon streams-it’s all connected).

In an era of politically-imposed, ever-shrinking environment ministry budgets, how will the proposed Water Sustainability Act address issues like a lack of political will to enforce water law and the unwillingness to commit resources to accurately monitor situations like that which exists on the Nicola River?

Rosenau ML, Angelo M. 2003. Conflicts between People and Fish for Water: Two British Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Rearing Streams in Need of Flows. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

p.49 “…the primary concern regarding water use and fish in the Nicola River basin is that extraction of water from many of the streams has been viewed as excessive during low flow periods. Too many times, inadequate flows may have occurred for either instream rearing juvenile fish, adult migration or the incubation of embryos and alevins, based on local fisheries management observations. Furthermore, flow issues may have worsened on occasion as a result of non-compliance by water license holders, be it intentional or otherwise, and in the absence of comprehensive compliance monitoring in this watershed. A lack of resources to carry out such compliance assessments is a common theme.”

p.62 “4.5.3 Non-Compliance Monitoring

“One of the more sensitive issues affecting fish and flows in this and other watersheds throughout British Columbia relates to non-compliance of water licensees who extract more water than is stipulated in their license. Hubert et al. (1990) showed that water license diversion rates for agriculture are often not adhered to, and this has probably been the case as well in the Nicola River basin. While the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan recommended that audits or compliance measurements of water extraction take place, for the most part this activity was limited in the watershed. A recent and rare exception to the lack of compliance water monitoring in the Nicola River basin involved the Regional Water Engineer directing a ranch on the Coldwater River to attach a cumulative-flow-recording device on their irrigation pump in 2001. Because the intake structures for many of these agricultural-water intakes are relatively crude, and do not normally have technologically-accurate flow-measuring devices attached to them, it is difficult to know if a license holder is in compliance with the amount of water permitted for withdrawal from the stream. Furthermore, compliance monitoring by the provincial government agency responsible for ensuring observance of the Water Act in the Nicola River basin has been almost non-existent. It should be noted that over-extraction of water impacts not only on instream fisheries resources but on water-license holders in the downstream areas.

“Over the years a number of individuals in the Coldwater Valley had complained that a particular license holder had been diverting more water than was allowed by the water licenses. When Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks water management staff began to investigate the complaint in 1991, it became clear that the water extraction taking place was substantially more than the diversion volume allowed by the water licenses. However, the practice was allowed to continue.

“Then in 1994 a further investigation again determined that the diversion of water at this ranch was significantly out of compliance as per the conditions set by the license; the non-compliance estimate was about double that of the permitted volume. Subsequently, in 1995 there was a public request that enforcement personnel investigate the same license holders, and in 1998 a Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks memo described the situation as a gross over-use of water. The matter still continued to remain unresolved.

“Finally, in 2001 the Province’s Water Engineer met with the license holder and sent a letter stipulating that a cumulative-flow-measuring device be attached to the facility and that the licensee submit records of water use to the Water Management Branch. The data provided by the measuring device showed that by August 1, 2001 almost 160 acre-feet had already been pumped and by August 29 over 250 acre-feet had been used; the license only allowed 115 acre-feet per annum. A subsequent flow measurement at the point of diversion estimated that almost 500 acre-feet would have been extracted per year when extrapolated over the season.

“The license holder appealed the requirement for measuring extraction of water by the Water Engineer to the Environmental Appeal Board, and took the position that local groundwater contributions to the diversion flows were substantially greater than that determined by the agency. The license holder felt that the amount of river water being used was within the limits of the license; note that groundwater extractions do not require licensing in British Columbia. The counter argument by water management staff was that the groundwater contribution was small. The Environmental Appeal Board upheld the Water Engineer’s position based on the evidence provided in the hearing.

“This case points to the difficulty in monitoring and enforcing compliance with licensed diversions in the Nicola River basin. Monitoring is expensive, time consuming, technically difficult, and fraught with inconsistencies. What is probably more remarkable is the fact that the water management agency took so long to enforce the Water Act despite evidence that the license holder was significantly diverting more than allowed by license for more than ten years.

“As a result of this and other experiences, it is the view of various fisheries professionals in the Thompson-Nicola region that over-extraction of water in the Nicola River basin is probably common and significant in terms of occurrences and volumes, and that a comprehensive review and audit are needed. The experience also points to the need for a careful review in terms of the current expectations by the public and governments for setting standards, monitoring and tough and appropriate penalties for non-compliance.”

March 9, 2011

Honourable Murray Coell
Minister of Environment
PO Box 9047, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2

Honourable John Slater
Parliamentary Secretary for Water Supply and Allocation
East Annex, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4

Dear Minister Coell and Mr. Slater,

We are writing in follow-up to Minister Coell’s meeting with the First Nations Leadership Council (First Nations Summit, Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Assembly of First Nations), as represented by Grand Chief Edward John and Chief Bob Chamberlain, on February 25th, to discuss the current provincial Water Act modernization (WAM) process. We welcome the opportunity to engage at this high level on this important and urgent matter.

We wish to reiterate our proposal that we enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to help move dialogue forward on the range of issues in an appropriate and comprehensive way, including convening a Water Forum to bring First Nations and the provincial government together for discussion. It is imperative that the Province engage with First Nations meaningfully before proceeding with its current process.

To underscore this, we set out in greater detail some of our serious concerns and objections regarding the current WAM process and the policy directions being proposed for the new Water Sustainability Act (WSA) (the “Policy Proposal”). Specifically, we are disappointed that the Policy Proposal does not clearly incorporate First Nations input from May 2010 formal submissions, either generally or in the seven proposed policy directions for the WSA. Further, we continue to contest the general process and lack of appropriate and meaningful consultation on a government-to-government basis with First Nations in British Columbia, as required by law and committed to in the New Relationship.

Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights are held at the Nation level, and each Nation has authority to make decisions about their lands and resources to address the unique circumstances of their particular Nation. As such, the Province has a duty to consult directly with the Nations on proposed decisions, including strategic level decisions. The current provincial process is a generic public process with no distinct or government-to-government engagement with First Nations that will be affected by any new water legislation.

The BC Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs are separate province-wide, political organizations that politically advocate for First Nations in British Columbia through their respective mandates. The First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) is a collaborative political working partnership among our three organizations, with the aim of advancing the interests of First Nations in British Columbia.

1. Failure of Policy Directions to Incorporate First Nations’ Input

In the context set out above, our organizations each made submissions to the Ministry of Environment in response to the WAM Discussion Paper, in addition to 13 other First Nations submissions from a variety of groups. While each submission highlighted unique viewpoints and concerns, there were several common threads throughout. Some of these concerns are included in the Report on Engagement; however, we feel that they were unjustly “softened” and were not adequately incorporated into the proposed policy directions. Below are some of the key points in this regard.

• First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal Title, Rights, and Treaty Rights, and object to provincial assertion of jurisdiction over water. This is noted in the Ministry of Environment’s Report on Engagement and the introduction to the Policy Proposal states that, “For greater certainty, the provisions of the new Act are intended to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in a manner consistent with the Constitution Act of Canada.” However, this does not acknowledge that there remains an outstanding requirement in BC for reconciliation of existing Aboriginal rights, including title, with the assertion of Crown jurisdiction. Instead, the policy directions for the WSA continue to assert provincial jurisdiction over water, including groundwater. Aboriginal rights, including title, are protected under section 35 and the provincial Crown does not enjoy full beneficial interest in the lands and resources. This matter remains largely outstanding in BC and any legislative and policy reform must reflect this reality.

• First Nations seek a more appropriate and inclusive government-to-government process for engagement in the WAM process. First Nation submissions on the WAM Discussion Paper were clear that greater and more meaningful engagement with First Nations – consistent with jurisprudence and the Province’s commitments in the New Relationship – is necessary, and that three First Nation-specific “workshops” on the WAM Discussion Paper were woefully inadequate. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment has been unresponsive to these requests and has implemented an even less meaningful process for engaging with First Nations through its current “blog” process, with no in-person or government-to-government engagement sessions. It is necessary to distinguish between those entities with governance/stewardship responsibilities (First Nations and other governments) and those of users (industry) and interest groups (non-government organizations). First Nations have constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, which give rise to a right to make decisions about the land and resources.

• As Indigenous Peoples, we are intimately connected to our waters and water resources and we have a inherent and sacred stewardship responsibility to responsibly manage and protect our waters. The Report on Engagement recognizes that water is of high spiritual and economic value to First Nations; however, the Policy Proposal does not recognize the inherent self-determination of First Nations over our water and water resources. The Province cannot implement water governance without working with First Nations on an inter-governmental basis. Because of our existing Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, our perspectives, interests and conceptions of stewardship must inform the development of any water policy and legislative/regulatory regime in BC. For example, it is crucial that First Nations be involved in decision-making processes over water allocation. Both the FNS and UBCIC submissions note that water allocation necessitates strategic level decision-making that considers and determines applications for use and diversion of water. Because these decisions have potential to impact on Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, First Nations must be engaged directly on water allocation. The Policy Proposal does not clearly address water allocation in light of existing Aboriginal title and rights.

• The WAM Process must be carried out in the spirit of the New Relationship. The Report on Engagement notes this common message from First Nations; however, the Policy Proposal, and the process leading up to it, does not reflect the New Relationship at all. First Nations engaged in the New Relationship with the Province of BC in 2005 when the Premier acknowledged that the Province’s unilateral development of a consultation policy had failed (as illustrated by Haida), and that the Province wanted to jointly develop new approaches with First Nation. Our agreed common vision in the New Relationship anticipated systemic changes, and we agreed to a “new government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition, and accommodation of Aboriginal title and rights.” The Policy Proposal does not currently reflect such a new relationship. Rather, it perpetuates long-standing, systemic problems in the relationship – in particular, the assertion of provincial jurisdiction where reconciliation remains largely outstanding through court decisions, treaties or other agreements. We remain committed to our New Relationship vision and goals and urge the Province once again to re-engage at a high level so that we may work collaboratively on these critical issues and maximize opportunities before us.

2. General Responses to Policy Directions of WSA
The Province must engage First Nations directly in a meaningful process and on a government-to-government basis in legislative and policy reform regarding water and water governance, as it is the First Nations themselves who hold constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. Further to this direct engagement with First Nations, we offer the following general responses to the draft policy directions set out in the Policy Proposal:

• “Protect Stream Health and Aquatic Environments”- Rules and standards for protecting stream health and aquatic environments must be developed with First Nations and must reflect that there are constitutionally protected Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, in BC which give rise to First Nations governance and decision-making with regard to the lands and resources in their territories, based on their traditional knowledge. We contest any attempt to unilaterally impose provincial standards. Given the potential implications and importance of this matter, the draft policy direction is far too vague to be able to provide further specific comments.

• “Consider Water in Land-Use Decisions”- The Crown has a legal duty to engage First Nations at the strategic level through to the operational level as decisions can be made at each of these levels that can potentially impact Aboriginal title or rights, or treaty rights. A primary feature of the New Relationship is to ensure this appropriate level of inter-governmental engagement on issues of mutual interest and concern including, specifically, land and resource use planning, management and decision-making. Strategic level engagement includes development/revision of legislation and policy, and management tools. It is useful to highlight some of the direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on the need for strategic level decisions – not only because of the potential for impacts from a single decision, but also because there exists potential for cumulative impacts from incremental strategic decisions:

I conclude that the Province has a duty to consult and perhaps accommodate on T.F.L. decisions. The T.F.L. decision reflects the strategic planning for utilization of the resource. Decisions made during strategic planning may have potentially serious impacts on Aboriginal right and title. The holder of T.F.L. 39 must submit a management plan to the Chief Forester every five years, to include inventories of the licence area’s resources, a timber supply analysis, and a “20-Year Plan” setting out a hypothetical sequence of cutblocks. The inventories and the timber supply analysis form the basis of the determination of the allowable annual cut (“A.A.C.”) for the licence. The licensee thus develops the technical information based upon which the A.A.C. is calculated. Consultation at the operational level thus has little effect on the quantity of the annual allowable cut, which in turn determines cutting permit terms. If consultation is to be meaningful, it must take place at the stage of granting or renewing Tree Farm Licences. The last issue is whether the Crown’s duty went beyond consultation on T.F.L. decisions, to accommodation. We cannot know, on the facts here, whether consultation would have led to a need for accommodation. However, the strength of the case for both the Haida title and the Haida right to harvest red cedar, coupled with the serious impact of incremental strategic decisions on those interests, suggest that the honour of the Crown may well require significant accommodation to preserve the Haida interest pending resolution of their claims. (Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004 SCC 73 at paras 76-77) (emphasis added)

In the context of water, this raises the issue of how the proposed “Provincial Water Objectives (PWOs)” will be determined that will purportedly be used to guide decisions under the WSA? We must endeavour to avoid the conflicts that have arisen through past unilateral strategic decision-making by the Province, as with the setting of the AAC. We must work jointly to design, develop and implement a water management regime. In this regard, we remind you of the specific political commitments in the New Relationship, aimed at a truly “new” relationship, where we agreed to:

 Develop new institutions or structures to negotiate Government-to-Government Agreements for shared decision-making regarding land use planning, management, tenuring and resource revenue and benefit sharing; and

 Identify institutional, legislative and policy changes to implement this vision and these action items;

Fundamentally, these commitments must include strategic level issues on key resources, such as water, as has been consistently and clearly conveyed by our organizations and First Nations in relation to the WAM process. The Policy Proposal is currently vague on the issue of water consideration in land use decisions, but raises numerous important issues and concerns for First Nations given the Province’s approach to land use and resource planning to date. Early government-to-government engagement on a new water regime will help to create stability and certainty, thereby reducing the potential for conflict.

• “Regulate Groundwater Use”- Groundwater is of great importance to First Nations. Because most groundwater eventually flows into surface waters, First Nations have huge interest in the management groundwater. As is clear, a lack of, or inadequate, regulations and management tools leads to serious issues such as depletion and contamination, which has direct impacts on other resources, our people and our communities. This is an area requiring urgent attention and policy change. However, we oppose the provincial assertion in the Policy Proposal that it will automatically be the body to regulate and control access to groundwater, without mention of or regard to Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights, to water. We are also extremely concerned that the Province is considering providing access to a third party in this way. The textbox on p.9 of the Policy Proposal notes that “Many First Nations communities rely on groundwater and will be impacted by groundwater regulation,” yet there is no reference to, or recognition, of our Aboriginal rights or treaty rights.

• “Regulate During Scarcity”- Conservation and sustainability are important principles. However, to advance and achieve them, the Province must work closely and jointly with First Nations as they have valuable traditional knowledge that will greatly inform and help shape this dialogue. The policy direction, as currently outlined, does not include any mention of First Nations at all.

• “Improve Security, Water Use Efficiency, and Conservation”- Any economic instruments that will be enabled as incentives for improving water use efficiency must be jointly developed with First Nations and must reflect the reality of our existing Aboriginal title, rights, and treaty rights. We are extremely concerned with the vague reference to “tradable permits” and “water markets” on p.11 of the Policy Proposal. We object to the commodification of our water by the Province. The Province has a duty to engage in meaningful discussion with First Nations on any such concept, as well as the proposed Agricultural Water Reserves. These concepts, as currently referenced, are vague, yet have potentially huge implications with respect to our Aboriginal title and rights, treaty rights, and interests.

• “Measure and Report”- First Nations successfully maintained the health of our water for thousands of years prior to contact with European settlers. We agree that measuring and reporting water use is critical to maintaining water health and availability. Measuring and reporting standards must be developed in partnership with First Nations to ensure our traditional knowledge is appropriately incorporated.

• “Enable a Range of Governance Approaches”- Water governance is incredibly complex. The general intent of “updating” water governance is a necessary step as it provides an opportunity to ensure water governance is more appropriately contextualized and reflective of the changing legal and political landscape. As noted by Grand Chief Ed John, “the key to establishing better water governance structure is “recognition and implementation of Aboriginal title and rights, negotiating solutions to public policy challenges directly with First Nations on a government-to-government basis, and developing legislation and regulations in collaboration with First Nations.” We all seek less conflict and more certainty. We note that the textbox on p. 13 states that “Aboriginal rights and title must be resolved.” This is misleading – it is not our Aboriginal title and rights that must “be resolved”; rather, what is required is the reconciliation of our pre-existing Aboriginal title and rights with the assertion of Crown jurisdiction. Again, the Constitution Act makes clear that the Province does not enjoy full beneficial ownership of the lands and resources. In this context, we strongly object to the Province asserting full jurisdiction and that it may delegate governance authority to third parties. Government-to-government processes and institutions for water governance are first required with First Nations as a priority.

3. Objections to WAM “Process”

• Engagement with First Nations must be meaningful and in accordance with contemporary case law including the Haida (2004) and Kwikwetlen (2009) decisions. Where the Crown is considering an action or decision with the potential of infringement on Aboriginal title and rights, its duty to consult is triggered. In this case, the Crown is considering a new legislative and policy framework for all water in BC, which absolutely has the potential to impact and infringe Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. While we appreciate that there is a public process for input into the Water Act Modernization, which the Province is required to do, it is also required to engage directly with First Nations who are the holders of Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. As the Report on Engagement notes, there is a risk of legal action if the province does not fulfill its legal obligations.

• Timelines have not been adequate for meaningful dialogue and do not constitute consultation with First Nations. Further to an inadequate and inappropriate process with First Nations, the Province set out impossibly short timeframes for its WAM process and did not provide capacity funding to help enable and assist First Nations to engage. In the current phase of the engagement process, Chiefs and Council received a letter and copy of the Policy Proposal on December 17, 2010, immediately prior to Christmas break, and were asked to provide comment by February 21, 2011 to respond. First Nations and First Nations organizations experience serious capacity limitations, which must be recognized and addressed by the Crown when it seeks to engage First Nations.

• Engagement via a “blog” is an exclusionary use of technology and has resulted in an unorganized record of input that minimizes the serious nature of revising the Water Act. Many First Nations do not have regular access to the internet (e.g. due to remoteness) and, so, would not be in a position to access the Living Water Smart Blog in a regular or meaningful way. People with significant knowledge and experience with our water, including Elders, might not have the technical knowledge, understanding or skill to use a blog. Additionally, there is no clear organization to the blog, making it difficult to search or analyze information or submissions. The Water Act is the major piece of legislation for all water in BC and we feel that the blog is an extremely poor form of engagement, particularly as the primary vehicle for engagement and given that the flow chart of the WAM process on p. 4 of the Policy Proposal implies that this is the last opportunity to have input into the process.

We note that a high percentage of blog posts object both to the current WAM process, as well as content of the current Policy Proposal, and that a common theme among the posts is that the Policy Proposal is much too vague to be able to adequately provide comment. Additionally we are unclear how the “What we heard” text boxes in the Policy Proposal are intended to be addressed or if they are going to be incorporated in some way into the proposed WSA.

The current process fails to constitute appropriate and meaningful consultation with First Nations and fails to live up to the commitments made by the Province in the New Relationship where we intended new, bold and innovative approaches and new government-to-government relationships. We call on the Province to demonstrate its continued commitment to the New Relationship and, again, propose a Memorandum of Understanding between us to move dialogue forward between the Province and First Nations.

In closing, we sincerely hope that we can work together to determine appropriate approaches for a government-to-government relationship regarding water and water governance.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL (original signed)

On behalf of the FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT:
Grand Chief Edward John
Chief Douglas White III Kwulasultun
Dan Smith

On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Chief Marilyn Baptiste

On behalf of the BC ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS:
Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould

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/

Could you please tell us if any studies were done to see how rural property values might be affected by changes to the Water Act. Changes to FITFIR, permits, term limits for licences etc. might affect rural domestic water users more than city users.

Also, could you please tell us if any studies were done to see what increased water costs the average rural domestic water user might expect to see due to changes to the Water Act.

On the news today there was a report that the City of Vancouver has reduced its consumption of bottled water from 20% to 20%. It doesn’t seem fair to change regulations to rural domestic water users if the City of Vancouver continues to use bottled water.

The Pembina Institute’s submission to WAM stated that shale gas extraction (fracking) uses significant water resources and this will continue to increase and should be regulated under the Water Act. Quebec is apparently now studying fracking.

If there are regulations that limit terms of licences etc. it should be very clear who the regulations will actually apply to and which licences will be exempt.

South Africa has already tried prepaid water meters see(http://www.adropoflife.tv/PrePaidWater11Reasons.pdf). They were later banned by a Johannesburg court, so I’m not sure which areas they are still being used. Everyone should read this.

Christina Postnikoff

Sincerely,
Dawn Massey

Emphasizing conservation and efficiency is great,but regulation is a crucial part of the toolkit,too. Reforming the Water Act is all about changing the law and regulations, so let’s talk about the merits of different regulatory approaches. Which ones provide certainty, and balance environmental needs, the long neglected side of water law in BC, with our other water law goals?

Your proposed model has failed elsewhere, what makes you beleive you can do better? Oh yeah, you’re just another large corporation yourselves.

Please find a real solution before attempting to fix things. If you need help there are a number of organizations that know more than you do. Try the David Suzuki Foudation for one. He should be able to be reached personally if you try, he’s been telling you all along.

Thanks,
JP, Surrey, BC

The new water sustainability act must protect our precious water resources and not open them to exploitation. Any water use permit should be reviewed by local environmental groups, native organizations and government agencies which ought to consider conservation as a priority over development. We are so fortunate to have wild places still. Let’s keep it that way for our children and their children, forever.

Sincerely, Dale Rolfsen (Quadra Island)

If it is the B.C. government’s plan to keep our water healthy and secure for the future. Then this proposed Water Sustainability Act should NOT gut strong legal protections for environmental flows (rules that ensure water takings do not compromise the health of the river/stream ecosystem) and replace them with ‘guidelines’ that merely have to be ‘considered’ when water is being taken from a river/stream.

If this government goal is to respond and adapt to climate change while ensuring we do not compromise nature’s needs. Then why create a “Water Sustainablity” documet that opens the door to corporations linked with OUR government being gifted with OUR water and the power to sell it to the highest bidder?
If your goals are as stated above then rewrite this document to affirm public, democratic control over water and build in support for rigorous environmental protections for water that are based on the needs of the eco-system and all water users.

If it is the B.C. government’s plan to keep our water healthy and secure for the future. Then this proposed Water Sustainability Act should NOT gut strong legal protections for environmental flows and replace them with ‘guidelines’ that merely have to be ‘considered’ when water is being taken from a river/stream.

If this government goal is to respond and adapt to climate change while ensuring we do not compromise nature’s needs. Then why create a “Water Sustainablity” documet that opens the door to corporations linked with OUR government being gifted with OUR water and the power to sell it to the highest bidder?
If your goals are as stated above then rewrite this document to affirm public, democratic control over water and build in support for rigorous environmental protections for water that are based on the needs of the eco-system and all water users.

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.

But also like many I am opposed or sceptical about some of the proposals or how they are proposed to be written up.

I have seen to many issues recently which were seemingly disconnected suddenly seem connected….by water. These issues are to do with run of river, water bottling, mining, etc. Corporations and industry are lobbying for changes such as flow requirements. If this is the sort of reason for the change to the Water Act, to appease private industry, the government should say so.

Privatization of our water resources should be a no discussion. The water resources have to remain public. From what I have read regarding tradable permits and water markets I would suggest dropping it from WAM all together at this state in time. It is to grey an area between being private/public.

The environment and communities should have priority use over industry while local government and committees should have a say on their watershed and its usages. Locals can be one of the best ‘watchdogs’ in terms of monitoring what is happening in their watershed.

The cumulative impacts need to be looked at for all water license applications especially the combined impacts of multiple applications in a watershed. This should also include studies of the groundwater and these studies, applications and their process should be made available to the public.

The full submission and further details are available at:
http://poliswaterproject.org/publication/391

We commend Government on its effort to engage the broader public in a robust process to modernize the BC Water Act. The recent government policy position paper offers insight into potential priorities of a new Water Sustainability Act and is a welcome addition to the ongoing dialogue. The proposal captures important central themes and some promising new directions discussed during the recent Water Act Modernization engagement process. Overall, there is clear progress in a number of areas including:

• groundwater regulation and licensing;
• attention to environmental flows;
• use of economic instruments and “beneficial use” provisions to achieve efficiency gains;
• monitoring and reporting requirements; and
• the development of new tools and processes such as “provincial water objectives” and “area based decision-making.”

Concerns and Priorities Going Forward

A number of the identified policy priorities remain questionable or poorly developed. Specifically, the problematic reference to water markets and backsliding on water use reporting requirements need to be clarified.

If the desired outcome of a modern Water Sustainability Act is to be achieved , four unresolved core issues remain. Each requires further development and clear commitments.

Unresolved Core Issues:

1. The priority of environmental flows over other non-essential human uses, and the need for clear binding and legally enforceable rules, as opposed to guidelines.
2. An allocation system that embeds the public trust to build resilience and avoid conflict.
3. Commitment to shared watershed governance to ensure those who are affected have a say in relevant decisions. Support of co-governance and substantive local participation on key water (and other resource) decisions must be enabled.
4. Accountability and oversight to provide British Columbians with transparency and confidence that what is promised will be done.

Next Steps in a Credible Process

It is imperative that government maintains the high standard of transparent and meaningful engagement that has been established in the WAM process to date. Public dialogue must continue as the Water Sustainability Act policy proposal is further developed. In particular, a formal commitment to offering an opportunity for public comment on draft legislation will help ensure the process remains credible. This opportunity will build confidence that the Province is indeed committed to a new approach to water management and is transparent in its efforts to ensure the protection of fresh water in British Columbia, now and into the future.

Water: A Clear Priority for British Columbians

Strong recognition exists that fresh water is a key strategic resource, and a crucial foundation to the economy and the environment; good, clean, and abundant fresh water is fundamental to community prosperity, human health, watershed function and quality of life throughout British Columbia.

A recent, major survey by McAllister Opinion Research examined the attitude of British Columbians toward water. With nearly unanimous support for updating and improving water management and governance in the province, the results of the poll confirmed the priority and importance of water to the average resident. Recent reports by the Auditor General (on the heels of a number of leading research and expert analysis) further reinforce the need for significant systematic reform. Reforming the Water Act is a critical first step to attaining the broad vision for a new paradigm of water management as committed to in the Living Water Smart Plan.

On behalf of the Water Sustainability Team at the University of Victoria’s POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, I look forward to supporting this process as it continues, and seeing further progress and ongoing engagement on this crucial issue.

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.

Ecosystem needs must have highest priority. Human well-being relies on ecosystem health, therefore:
- Proposed “guidelines” need be changed to “required minimum stream flows” that are legislated and enforced for every stream and all surface water license holders. (Section1)
- Groundwater systems need to be studied, mapped, and regulated. (S3)
- Assessment of cumulative impacts should be required for all water licence applications, and the process must be public and transparent. (S2)

Industrial and corporate interests must not trump environment or community. Long term ecological well-being, not short-term profit, offers a more sustainable principle for the Water Act:
- The present water licence system “First in time, first in right” should be replaced with “priority of use” principles applied to all water licences. (S2)

Privatization of BC water resources is unacceptable.
- Discussion of “tradable permits” and “water markets” should be removed from the government’s current policy proposal. (S5.1)

Public involvement is important.
- Local watershed advisory groups should be established and local government be given voice. (S7)

Monitoring and reporting water use should be mandatory.
- The policy proposal makes it discretionary, “flexible”, and “enables” it for problem areas. This is not good enough. (S6)

Thanks for your attention to these important matters.

We have not even addressed water conservation. Canadians use far more water than citizens in other countries because we have seen it as an unlimited resource. We need to address the water conservation seriously before we even consider taking more water for human use.

This proposed act does not provide for adequate protection of our water or for managing our water in the face of climate change.

Our ecosystems should be given first and legislated priority so that they can continue to survive.

Local communities need to have more of a voice in water allocation and management. We are currently experiencing a “gold rush” on our local streams and rivers with the undemocratic IPP proposals, where local communities can only watch in horror as their cherished environment is destroyed so business can make a quick profit leaving taxpayers with a destroyed landscape and a huge power bill.

I believe this proposed water act only offers more of the same. It needs to be postponed, rewritten to ensure clearly defined, long term protection for our water sources and then there should be an extensive public consultation.

If one does not know “what is the case”, and “what was the case”, how can we go forward with confidence that things will be for the better?

One thing is obvious: private interests do not belong in this discussion. It is a public, “commons” affair, a sphere which includes the nonhuman elements as well.

More than 100 years ago mostly small, mom and pop operations, started our forest industry. Today, most of BC’s forest land tenure is controlled by a handful of large corporations. The same can be said for the fish farming industry. It too started out as hundreds of small family owned company tenures and devolved into three large multinational corporations controlling the industry.

With the recent interest of Nestle and GE in BC’s water, it’s easy to see where this industry will end up. Likely, small water tenure holders will sell out to large corporations like Nestle, or Coca Cola.

What we are seeing in BC, with respect to resource management: forests, fish, and now water, is control falling into the hands of people who’s sole responsibility it is to maximize profits to shareholders, who are disconnected from BC communities and our environment.

Environmental degradation is a slow, steady, process in which profits and jobs invariably take precedent over environmental health. Clearly, if we hope to survive ourselves, human need ( of trees, fish, or water) must never come before the health of the environment. That is not the case here in BC.

I see little benefit from the recent surge in water license applications to BC communities.
I do see, increasing off-shore control of our water, billions more plastic water bottles being land filled, and a further degraded environment. This is not a good place to go.

Too many times in the past, legislation has been passed with a particular intent and loose language, only to later be used to justify actions and decisions that move directly opposite to the original “intent” of the legislation. Canadians are clear: we don’t want to risk privatization of water resources or having rights to Canadian water being sold off. We are told that this piece of legislation intends to protect against that. OK then, state it CLEARLY in the wording of the act. Don’t allow vague language to jeapordize that intent.

http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/democracyschool.html

The people in each community need to write their own constitution for the environment and the environment’s rights. Water rights…takes on new meaning doesn’t it?

My question on this subject is..How is the government respecting indigenous rights, title and worldviews in respect to changing the Water Act?

Also be sure not to further punish the farmers who already take a beating on so many fronts.

And keep up the good work

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?

I see the wording on the Water Science web page has been updated from a statement the report will be released by Dec 2010, to the report being released in mid-February:
“BC Water Science Strategy – Next Steps
A report on the proceedings for this event will be available by mid-February. Input from the BC Water Symposium will be used to generate a framework for the Water Science Strategy in 2011. Visit the Water Science Strategy for the latest information and to view the presentations from the Water Symposium.

It’s March now and still no report!
It’s been SIX months since the Symposium.
Will this report be released before the public comment period closes?