The new BC Water Sustainability Act -- private interests trump public good

By Nancy Clegg, The Citizen March 4, 2011

Water in the Cowichan Valley is a topic of intense interest, as residents wonder if we will have enough water to supply our needs. The Cowichan Basin Water Management Plan is an attempt to meet these concerns, but only so much can be done by the local authorities, as the overall responsibility for water rests with the provincial government.

In an attempt to clarify and consolidate its legislation on water, the B.C. Government recently released its "Policy Proposal on British Columbia's Water Sustainability Act," outlining the key policies it proposes to incorporate into the new act. It includes a number of good ideas -- establishing provincial water objectives, including the idea of efficient use into the terms of water licences, the regulation of groundwater resources, and so on.

However, the good intentions of the act are overpowered by two major flaws. The first of these is the reliance on guidelines rather than standards to establish the minimum flow required to maintain a healthy stream. The Technical Background Report that accompanies the policy document distinguishes between them. "A guideline approach allows the decision maker to consider applications on its social, economic, and environmental merits. ...When considered as a standard, the IFR [Inflow Stream Requirement] becomes mandatory criteria in decision making." (p. 10). A guideline, then would allow a decision maker to rule that the economic value of a company's proposal was more important than the health of the river and of all of the fish in it. I think the people of B.C. value their rivers more than that.

The second major flaw is the reliance on water markets as one of the economic instruments that it intends to use to "promote security, water use efficiency and conservation." What this means is that a company with a water licence (typically granted for a 40 year period), to extract a certain amount of water, will be able to sell any water that is surplus to its needs on an open water market to the highest bidder. So if the mill in Crofton doesn't need all of its water, it could, without further discussion about what would be in the best interests of the public, or the river, sell it to a company that wants to set up a water bottling plant. The water in the licence is effectively privatized.

These two major flaws negate the "security" of our water, both for people and for our aquifers and streams and rivers. I urge people to go to the website www.livingwatersmart.ca/blog/ and let the government know that you do not support these policy directions.

Nancy Clegg
Cobble Hill

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Water+Sustainability+private+interests+trump+public+good/4383939/story.html