As many citizens of Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows are aware, the ongoing saga of the North Alouette has cast a light on the failings of how the Province regulates water.
In speaking to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, Michael chose to focus on the amendments to the Water Act and draw attention to intrigue occurring around the North Alouette.
Below you will find the draft excerpt from that debate and as always the official Hansard will be posted once it is available.
Michael Talks Water in the Legislature
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 3
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010
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 land owner, 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.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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’s something else 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
[ Page 3628 ]
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. 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 have legitimate needs for the water, but there has to be some meaningful legislation to guide the process and to protect all concerns.
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.
