M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. I’m going to confine my comments to amendments to the Water Act.

Citizens in my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows have had their concerns about water heightened by an incident that took place late in May last year, when a large landowner, the Aquilini Investment Group, had taken water from the North Alouette River in a large pipe that actually diverted the river itself within the banks.

There are dikes on each side of the river. Within the dikes, they had diverted a part of the river to make it easier for them to take water from the river. They put a large pipe, I think 40 centimetres, over the top of the dike and down into their cranberry fields. This was discovered by residents who walk the dikes. I have to say, of course, that they did not have a licence to do so.

It has raised a great deal of concern, and it continues to be in the local press. Today there was another article. Stewardship groups and others have banded together to try to get a response from the government, and they’re very keen to see positive changes to the Water Act that would address situations like occurred in Pitt Meadows. They’ve been waiting a long time, and they’re losing patience, understandably, with the lack of response.

The case was investigated eventually after considerable pressure by local groups. It was investigated slightly by DFO but more so by the Ministry of Environment. Recommendations have been forwarded now to Crown counsel with regard to this case as to whether charges should be laid. There is a fine of up to $250,000 for such an offence. But there it rests, and we haven’t heard anything further. We don’t know whether the Crown will make their determination public or not. I certainly hope so, given that there is a strong public interest in my community to hear the outcome of this case.

Now, as I say, the groups in my community have done some proactive work. They are also, of course, angry and upset and have talked to various government officials about it. But they also have some suggestions — good suggestions, I think — as to what they would like to see in terms of changes to the Water Act. They’re saying, specifically, that water taken out of a public body of water should be metered and monitored by government and non-governmental organizations. As it stands now, when water is taken out of a public river, there’s no metering. So there’s no real way of knowing how much water has been taken, although there is a broad amount that is approved in a licence or approved by the comptroller without a licence. That can also take place, but neither of those has taken place. So that’s one recommendation that they have.

Secondly, they want to see water licences contain language that will protect the river system and no longer allow water to be withdrawn, regardless of river conditions. These rivers are subject of course, like most rivers in the province, to low levels of flow at different times of the year. Oftentimes that’s in the summer, and those are times too when farmers need water, understandably, for their crops. So they’re concerned that there is no system in place under the Water Act to provide for the protection of fish and for a minimum flow of water in the stream.

They have five recommendations. Thirdly, they say that water should be paid for by the licensee and the proceeds used for river ecosystem enhancement. Right now there’s a licence fee, as I understand it, but no additional fees — so it’s pretty much free water, if you will.

Fourthly, there should be penalties for non-compliance, and they should be swift, automatic and expensive. As I say, they’ve been waiting a long time to see what, if anything, is going to happen with regard to this particular case. I think it’s well known that the Aquilini Investment Group have contributed significantly to the B.C. Liberal Party. The party has their big fundraiser there at the Golden Eagle Golf course every summer. The community is aware of that, and I know that that’s something else that they’re looking to see — that this government is going to take action notwithstanding that and enforce the law, such as it is

Lastly — and I think this is a particularly good one — they want a water management plan that must be in place before any licences are issued. They have also suggested some ideas of how, with new technology, you can monitor not only the flow in the river but the water withdrawals. That can save a lot of time — people having to go out and check manually and the like.

When we look at this bill, we don’t see any of those changes that they’re suggesting, and I know they’re going to be very, very disappointed in this bill. In fact, as my colleague pointed out, one of the things that it does have, under section 14, is: “If diversion or use of water is required for a term not exceeding 12 months, the comptroller or a regional water manager may, without issuing a licence….” That’s now being extended to two years, so it goes from one to two years.

So instead of one year without having to get a licence, you can get authority — which I repeat, in this case, the authority was not obtained…. It now goes to two years that you can be given authority to proceed with a water withdrawal, which can have considerable impacts on a community and on wildlife, without a licence. So that’s indeed a great concern of theirs and of mine.

I know that there’s a water act modernization process that the government is undergoing at the current time, as we understand it. But one has to think: how long is it going to take for that process to take place? I would assume, certainly, that there isn’t going to be any additional legislation in this spring session, because why would they have put these amendments in this miscellaneous act if they were going to do a larger amendment to the Water Act?

If the pattern repeats itself, as it did in 2005, where we didn’t have a fall session, then we’re looking at another year, at least, before any meaningful legislation that will address the real problems that are out there with regard to the sharing of water between communities, wildlife and, in this case, the agricultural community. They both have legitimate needs for the water, but there has to be some meaningful legislation to guide the process and to protect all concerns.

So I look forward to hearing comments further from the minister during the committee stage that will, I hope, give some assurance to my community that their real concerns are going to be addressed by this government quickly.

Could it be that it is too presumptuous of us to request and, at least get an acknowledgement from the MOE that it had received our letter?

On the other hand, could it be that we are on to something, when millions of gallons of public river water are parceled out to farms for pennies while residential rates for water cost hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Clearly, the ministry has turned turtle insofar as the issue is now into the open and the deceptive allocation of one of our most precious commodities is being squandered by a negligent bureaucracy.

Yes, folks, you have got the message. From April onwards, our local governments reiterated to us over and over again the value of water. We have gone out and bought water-saving devices in the form of low-flush toilets and conservation shower-heads in order to save this most precious commodity. Residential sprinkling regulations are readily accepted by you when our rivers and reservoirs are at low water risk.

But not so some farmers. They have been given carte blanche use of this life-giving water in any way that he/she shall choose, it would seem. At least that’s the example we found and reported on with a massive cranberry grow operation in Pitt Meadows.

Oh, yes, I forgot there is supposed to be a responsible farm use of this public water so no harm comes to the environment. The Water Act clearly says that the water must be used beneficially. And, yes, because of our “fiscal meltdown,” the ministry has now said it is going to rely on the public to tell when our rivers and streams are in jeopardy.

The ministry is too short staffed to get out in the field to monitor the thousands of licences that have been issued. As a matter of fact, the ministry continues to reduce staff in its Surrey office.

It is now long overdue for a complete revision to the B.C. Water Act, as “that dog won’t hunt and we desperately need one that will.” The government will say we are in the process of revising the water act, but it has not reached out to us for any input.

Our outline for farm water regulatory changes in the Alouette watershed, sent unanswered to the MOE in Surrey, would include some of these points:

In order to properly safeguard the aquatic resources in the Pitt/Alouette watersheds, a new way of doing business must be undertaken by government. ARMS and the Alouette Valley Association suggest that the circumstances here provide a great opportunity to apply a new protocol for an advanced “Farm Water Use and Allocation Plan.

The protocol suggested includes cost-effective real-time monitoring of farm river water diversions, as well as allocation planning to allow water to be removed when it has little environmental impact.

Our rationale for this suggestion is based on the fact that, without a water allocation plan in place, there is no longer enough water to address aquatic ecosystem requirements, as well as supply the burgeoning berry farm industry in this region.

Protocols have been developed in other jurisdictions to monitor farm water withdrawals. This includes proven wireless methods (i.e., real-time information is sent over the Internet monitoring withdrawals of water by the licence holder) and are in use in other jurisdictions of intense farming throughout North America to manage multi-water use issues.

British Columbia, on the other hand, is frozen in an antiquated and failed system. Licensed farm operators in B.C. can take unmonitored volumes of water from streams, at low flows, that can already be harmful to fish and aquatic life, yet the ministry continues down this blind alley, by issuing farm water licenses without seeming to understand, or monitoring, the overall cumulative effects in British Columbian streams and, in particular, the Pitt/Alouette Watersheds.

Planning and proportioning meaningful farm-water volumes is no small matter. Recognizing that water must be allocated for fish and wildlife as well as for farming has not been undertaken in our area, or, for that matter, the province as a whole, in any meaningful way. Now is the time to do it. ARMS and our partner group, the AVA, take the position that there is an immediate need for metering of all farm industry using publicly licenced water, from the Pitt, Alouette and North Alouette river watersheds as well as full real-time disclosure of water use (i.e., remote sensing and internet lodging of data).

Geoff Clayton and

Bruce Hobbs

Maple Ridge

It begins with another letter from Environment Canada-dated 21, 2009-(I’ve decided to include the year)- to inform me that they need more time to collect the informtion I “requested” (my right as a Canadian citizen) regarding the N.Alouette fish kill May 25th-information regarding the involvment of Environment Canada and its staff. I have told these folks on the phone and in emails the type of information that is really important to me, but they insist that “all” correspondence from any source to them is included in the package. I guess this includes emails from Bruce Hobbs who assures me he’s completed the process, but there are “others” that may still be somewhere along the route. EC says they need all these folks to write off their emails, before they can send the stuff I want to see. And guess what, a verbal go ahead isn’t good enough, it has to be by snail mail because that’s how EC communicates. What a surprise!
Okay, so I have a collection of these letters now – from EC and DFO -. At the bottom there’s that little paragraph to inform me that I can “complain to the information commissioner” if I think the delay is unreasonable. It’s a number in Ottawa-not toll free -819-944-0262. I dial it and receive a direction to call a second number because the usual person is not well today. I then dial that number in order to speak to Veronica Gagnon and receive her voice message in French-no English.

Parle vous, Francais? There have been a number of surprises from Environment Canada since May 25th, but this one is more unexpected than most. I decide to take the note to MP Randy Kamp’s office. Randy’s in Ottawa, but his executive assistant is kind enough to dial Ottawa and listen to the message. My French isn’t as good as it should be,and I’m not totatlly sure what she said.
Mr. Strahl hangs up the phone. He has a surprised look on his face.
I asked him what language he heard. He answered that it was French and only French – no English. He seemed as surprised as I was about that. My comment was “I thought Canada was a bilingual country.”
Mr. Strahl said he would check into it. I guess he thought an explanation would be in order. Today, I received an email from Mark that included an apology from EC of sorts – it was signed by the person who was sick and relayed me by her stand-in. It says, “I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.” Question: has this been an issue? Are English speaking Canadians being spoken to in French only by bureaucrats and public employees in Ottawa? I had no idea. The email went on to say, ___’s duties have recently changed and due to an oversight, her voice mail greeting was not updated. It has now been updated to include a billingual greeting.” Question: what previous duties would permit ___ to respond entirely in French to Canadians calling a government official paid by both English and French citizens?
Wow! I think I’ve just made a contribution to bilingualism in Canada. If Lester Pearson were still alive I do believe he would have shaken my hand.
post script: I have been informed that I should receive the results of my freedom of information request from Environment Canada by mail during the week of Nov. 9th. This is like a christmas present for me. I hope it’s not a pair of socks or another tie.

Investigating Unauthorized Water Use on the N.Alouette – an update.

As reported in the NEWS (Nov. 4th) the Conservation Branch of M.O.E. has finally prepared a report for crown counsel that could lead to charges related to the pipe installed on the N.Alouette. We’ll see.
I have new comments to make on this topic-but they must wait until next time. I’m working on a blog now and will soon invite you to it’s official unveiling. It will be entitled, Emberly’s Red Schoolhouse Jack

Recommends Ministry takes responsibility for managing BC Rivers

Victoria – - Thousands of dead fish fry were found this spring in the North Alouette River. The Green Party of BC has learned that little will be done to find the cause of this unusual fish kill. “We only hope the provincial Environment Minister, Barry Penner is as concerned as we are. We would support him in launching a full inquiry,” said Green Party Leader, Jane Sterk. Sterk informed the Minster of the incident on September 8th with no response to-date.

BC Greens worry about overlap in the river’s management. Because salmon-bearing streams are a federal matter, the Department of Fisheries is responsible, but only concerning sediment and silt problems, not pollution. That is left to Environment Canada. Neither has enough staff to investigate or to ensure that appropriate action is taken.

“We understand the challenges. However, we need leadership to protect our rivers at the provincial level,” said Sterk. “Washing our hands by passing it over to the DFO lacks vision and dedication to BC. We hope that the Minister will show leadership. If he does, we support his Ministry having the ability to investigate this and similar incidents across the province.”

The North Alouette River is under pressure, and threat to the health of the salmon population. Rather than protecting the river, the Ministry of Environment has issued multiple water licenses, allowing farmers to use the water for agricultural purposes. Agriculture is critical to BC, but more licenses are pending despite evidence that water flow rates are already too low to support salmon. There is also evidence of water use violations with little or no enforcement.

“The BC Greens assume that Minister Penner understands there are cumulative environmental impacts on rivers. Overwhelming scientific evidence states that minimum flow rates must be maintained. This must take precedence over granting water licenses,” said Sterk. “We recommend that the BC Ministry of Environment has responsibility for protecting our rivers, and needs to investigate the fish kill on the North Alouette,” said Sterk.

Media Contact
Simon Lindley, Media Chair
mediachair@greenparty.bc.ca
250-732-6260

To learn more about the N. Allouette River, please visit:
http://www.savethealouette.ca
http://www.youtube.com/riveralouette