Water has been a hot topic in Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows, specifically the regulations around extraction for agricultural purposes. Today Michael had an opportunity to discuss the relevant legislation, The Water Act, with Environment Minister Barry Penner and in particular the issue of instream flow requirements.
Below you will find the draft Hansard of the exchange and the official version will be posted when available.
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
________________________________________
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
COMMITTEE A BLUES
MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
________________________________________
CSA – 20100503 PM 003/LCG/1425
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
M. Sather: I’m the deputy critic for Environment, so from time to time I’ll have some questions for the minister. I wanted to carry on with the Water Act modernization.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to clarify with the minister regarding legislation that will come out of this process. Is it possible, then, that there will be legislation before 2012?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Yes.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: If I can remind members that legislation is not part of Committee A and that it must all refer to Vote 30. Thank you, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate the answer from the minister. The reason that I asked is because there are references in the document, as the minister will know, to 2012, so that’s good news, I think.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A lot of the discussion — or a significant part about it, and I know the part that is very significant in my community — is about instream flow requirements. Now while these are not specifically required under the Water Act, provincial decision-makers have included IFRs, as it’s called, in their decision-making. I’m just wondering if the minister can give some examples, any examples, of when and where this would have been done by the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The member’s correct that that practice in the water licensing division of the Ministry of Environment has evolved over the years. Traditionally IFRs, or instream flow requirements, were not always part of a water licence.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can give the member a couple of examples quickly here, mindful of the time. You’ll recall it was, I think, last September that I signed an order to temporarily curtail the water licence rights of a rancher in the upper Nicola River area. That person had a very longstanding water licence that made no mention of instream flow requirements.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, due to very dry weather last summer, the combination of lack of precipitation with continued extraction for irrigation purposes meant there wasn’t going to be enough water for returning kokanee sockeye salmon to spawn in the upper Nicola. I signed an order, which I think was unprecedented at the time, to interrupt that person’s water rights for a period of time so that there would be enough water for the kokanee to spawn.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The good news, I can report to members, is that the kokanee responded immediately. As soon as there was more water in the river, our staff saw the kokanee move out from where they had been holding downstream and into their traditional spawning area. It happened like that. So it was an issue, and it worked. But that’s retroactive, and that’s an existing water licence that’s very old.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are quite a number of very old water licenses. One of the issues we’re looking at in the Water Act modernization process is: is there a way to standardize or, rather than doing ad hoc individual orders, is there some other mechanism we can come up with that is fair to agriculture but fair to fish or other users or uses of the water?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Historically as well — for example, for power-generation purposes — water licences were issued without consideration for instream flow requirements. One example is Soo River, near Whistler. There’s a run-of-river project that I’ve been to there a couple of times. It’s my understanding that their water licence does not contain an instream flow requirement. That was a licence issued in the early to mid-1990s. In contrast today, as a matter of policy, the Ministry of Environment does include instream flow requirements for run-of-river power projects.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A good example, just across the way from Soo River, is the Fitzsimmons Creek project, which literally runs between Whistler and Blackcomb ski hills.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
That project became operational just prior to the Olympics commencing, in February, and they do have a requirement to maintain a certain level of water flow in the channel at all times. Or stated differently, they can’t extract for their power-generation purposes all of the water in the river. There’s a certain amount that they simply cannot take. So that is how the process has evolved over time.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are issues like that that we’re confronting for agriculture but also residential drinking water purposes. The deputy was telling me he was dealing with an issue just recently with staff talking to him in the Nelson area, where there are residential water users. There are still more people wanting to build homes, and they’re asking: where is the water going to come from? Well, if you’re going to maintain a certain in-stream flow, there might not be extra water for people who are planning to build their homes there and expect to turn on the shower in the morning and cleanse themselves.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we’re going to maintain minimum flows, that means there’s a limit. But traditionally in B.C. we haven’t thought we had to deal with those issues. We’ve always thought we had this unlimited abundance of fresh water. In fact, unfortunately, that’s not the case, there are limits, and we’re coming up against it now.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Just so that viewers — those that are remaining now that the hockey game, I guess, is on — will be aware, in-stream flow requirements have to do with maintaining adequate flow on the stream, typically around protecting the health of the stream. A lot of those discussions come down to fish and their use.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just wanted to ask the minister a question with regard to the Fish Protection Act. I do certainly recall the action that he took last fall in the Nicola, I guess it was. He said that that was unprecedented. Now, notwithstanding the run-of-river projects, have there been any other instances, then, where the Fish Protection Act has been invoked in the way that he did last fall?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: The answer to the member’s question is that we believe that it was unprecedented. In fact, I had to go to cabinet in August to get an order-in-council passed to bring into force a provision. I think it was section 9 of the Fish Protection Act, which had never been brought into force before, which gives the Minister of Environment the authority to curtail on a temporary basis water licence rights that have been established through a licence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I did that in August, anticipating that we might run into that crunch in September if the weather didn’t change, and unfortunately, it didn’t. It remained hot and dry. So in September we then issued that order. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
