The following represent my position on the draft proposal in context of Interior Health’s role in drinking water protection …

Interior Health (IH) interests:
Since the Water Act review and modernization process began with the 2008 release of Living Water Smart, IH staff have identified and advocated for change in two key areas: integrated watershed management and water system governance.
Water suppliers and private water system owners in our region continue to be challenged by land-use developments that impact on the long-term quality and sustainability of their water supply. In the southern interior these impacts are associated with a range of new and existing resource extraction, recreation, and community development activities. It is crucial that an integrated approach to land and water use management be employed giving fair, meaningful consideration to all parties including water supply system owners and users.
Governance of water allocations is clearly an important topic for the large number of community and private water systems in our region that draw from ground water or fully allocated surface water sources. However, the governance concerns for IH also include water users communities (WUC) created and regulated under the Water Act. 46 of the 73 WUC permitted under the Drinking Water Protection Act in BC are located in our region. Over ¾ these WUC are currently on long-term boil water notices due to inadequate treatment and poor water quality.

The Water Sustainability Act proposal:
The issues above are addressed under key areas #2) Consider water in land use decision, and #7) Provide for a range of governance approaches, of the Water Sustainability Act proposal.
The proposal points to water quality objectives and watershed specific planning as tools to support sustainable allocation and land-use management. In principle this would provide a platform for integrated watershed management; however, we note that water quality objectives and watershed/basin specific sustainability planning were available under the existing Water Act. It is possible the updated framework will provide greater flexibility to implement these tools going forward (e.g. through delegated governance models); however, there is also the potential for these tools to remain ideas in principle and do virtually nothing to address the needs of our communities.
The Water Act Modernization (WAM) initiative has paid much attention to governance of water allocations. The proposed enhancements (including licensing of groundwater withdrawal) have potential to improve management of water resources. However, the issues with water supply systems owned by water users communities appears to have received little to no attention. It is possible that at some point in this five-plus year review process the legislative structure for WUC was explored and no issues were identified. If that is the case, then the current state of WUC must then rest with (the lack of) implementation of existing legislative tools.
Recommendations
I strongly recommend that prior to moving forward the existing proposal be updated to:
1) include a (≥5 year) framework including specific deliverables and timelines for implementation of water quality objectives and watershed sustainability plans throughout the province
2) explicitly acknowledge the challenges water users communities have had in complying with basic health and safety standards
3) if no issues were identified with the legislative structure for water users communities, specify next steps to ensure available tools are being applied to support communities served by these systems

Additional specific comments on the current draft proposal:
– Off-stream watering for live stock should be accommodated for on fully allocated streams. This would compliment current efforts by local ranchers and MFLNRO in creating sustainable range management plans and help to sustain riparian buffers, an important factor in stream health.
– There should be specific reference to the use of water supply and demand studies for large water suppliers as a tool to support sustainable water supplies in the face of climate change and/or periodic drought.
– There should be a more explicit link between domestic water licensing and drinking water safety requirements to facilitate coordinated government action to ensure potable water for all. This could include a formal consultation process between water stewardship and health authority staff when licenses for domestic supplies are being considered.
– Consideration should be given to specific requirements/tools to facilitate integration of existing Water Users Communities. Some powers exist under the existing Water Act to cancel permits for water conservation purposes, but provincial staff have been very hesitant to apply them to date.
– The province has recently started to provide water licenses on fully allocated lakes/reservoirs for the lease lots based on unused water amounts. This is a disincentive for water suppliers to conserve water and does not align with the concept of ecological valuation for water. In addition, this lets the lease holders establish a greater claim to the water front property on reservoir lakes. Water suppliers rights on upland reservoir lakes must be respected.
– Source water protection planning should be explicitly linked to the provisions of the Water Sustainability Act. The expertise and powers of provincial environment and MFLRNO staff are crucial for effective water system source assessment and protection planning. The link between these staff/agencies and drinking water source protection processes in BC is currently tenuous at best, relying largely on individual staff pushing their way to the table. Explicitly linking source protection plans (quality/DWPA) with supply and demand plans (quantity/WSA) would provide a consistent mandate for government action to protect drinking water.
– We must be confident that adequate language/powers/tools exist to facilitate balancing of domestic and agricultural users needs and demands during drought. Agricultural water allocation rules must be adequate (i.e. in consideration of FITFIR) to support decision making for food security.

*Minimum water flows to maintain ecological integrity must be scientifically determined and legally binding on all existing and new licenses, not merely set out as ‘guidelines’ of which ‘preferred’ industries (like the oil & gas sector) are exempted. The definition of “beneficial use” should be expanded to reflect modern realities, and be made binding upon all water users. Licenses should be reviewed periodically so to ensure they are balanced with current supply and demand. Public participation in numerous aspects of water decision-making, including licensing, must be ensured.*

Climate change risks may be uncertain, but it is prudent to prepare for worst case future scenarios. Climate change aside, we are currently witnessing ecological decline in water systems throughout our province. It is wise to heed to the example of other jurisdictions, like Australia, which might give us a preview of our worst case scenario. In the face of extreme scarcity pressures due to ongoing drought that has no determinate end, Australia is having an extremely difficult time allocating minimum water flows for the environment from the water ‘budget’ they have on the Murray-Darling river system. We can avoid problems like they are experiencing in Australia and elsewhere by meaningful action now to maintain environmental integrity for generations to come.

Thank you for reviewing and updating BC’s Water Act. Thank you for consulting with the general public. I believe it is also important to consult and collaborate with First Nations communities.

Aspects I would like to see in BC’s Water Sustainability Act are:

1. Public water stays public. The term “Beneficial Use” can use clarity as it is not clear if the beneficiaries can claim property rights to the water.

2. Public costs and regulations apply to all users. Specifically, not making exceptions for industries, such as mining, forestry and bottled water, that would compromise the integrity of ecosystems.

We need fresh air, water, and food to live and thrive. Water is such an important life-giving resource not just for us but for all species that help to keep the larger ecosystems healthy including us.

Tsolum River Restoration Society (TRRS)
November 15, 2013
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Water Sustainability Act Legislative Proposal.
The TRRS feels that not enough time was provided between the release of the WSA Legislative Proposal and the deadline for comment. Many of the folks who care so deeply about this resource are volunteers and have limited time to address significant changes to one of the most important Acts in our Province. We join our voice with those other stewardship groups around the Province who are demanding the deadline be extended to March 1, 2014 ensuring astute and thorough commentary from all.
Water is a finite resource and we must find ways to share domestic, industrial, commercial, agricultural and ecological needs. From the limited time we have had to analyze this document we do not observe this sharing done from a perspective of understanding capacity first and allocations based on that capacity.
We feel strongly that Environmental Flows should be given a primary role first. The current exemptions for major water users must be brought into a capacity overview and an allocation plan based on today’s capacity.
British Columbians care about their water and the quality of life inherent in its role in life in general cannot be overstated.
Please allow more time.

From another post: “Water is BC’s most important natural resource. Given the pressures of a growing population, changing climate and expanding development pressures, steps must be taken to ensure that BC’s use of freshwater is sustainable. A new WSA must ensure that private rights to water do not take precedence over this the sustainable management of this public resource.
There must be no exemptions from regulations; Public, private or governmental. In years to come, don’t let the citizens of BC look back to when this government did not do enough to protect this invaluable resource.”
Can’t say it any better.

Unfortunately I am quite uniformed about this proposal and thereby can’t really agree or express any specific concerns, however I believe it is critical that such legislation be handled with extreme care and scope.

In no event can we allow our water regulations fall prey to another North American Free Trade Agreement!

From what I can see and have heard that is the heading this proposal is currently on.

I agree with those saying it needs more work, exposure, and time.

Apparently there is no mention of how hydraulic fracturing will be regulated if allowed?

That’s kinda creepy…

Clear, enforceable regulations are needed to protect water flows for aquatic species and ecosystems, and must apply to all new and current licences. No exemptions should be made for any industrial use, and tighter regulations on the impacts of water use by industry should be developed. In particular, use of water for fracking should cease. Public control of water resources is critical, and private companies must not be granted licences that can be traded or sold. Licences need to be reviewed regularly, at least every 5 years, to ensure that water use is at a sustainable volume and not negatively impacting ecological or human communities. Responsible management of water resources must focus on the common good, including environmental protection, and not on private gain. Local representatives must have a say in managing local watersheds. Finally, the deadline for public comment should be extended to ensure full input on legislation regarding water, our most vital natural resource.

First of all, I would like to thank the province of BC for putting in the time and effort to allow for an opportunity for the public to provide feedback. A number of key pieces of legislation in BC require updating (Wildlife Act, Mines Act, Placer Mining Waste Regulation, etc.) and I am happy to see that the process is underway for the Water Act. I am happy to see some wording around the protection of aquatic health and fish habitat through the protection of minimum environmental flow. It would be nice to see some strong language (no “where possible” or “where practical”) in the final statute, identifying clearly defined/measurable requirements around the protection of aquatic ecosystems and fish habitat. In addition, no industry should be exempt from this statute (e.g. Oil and Gas). Given the changes to the federal Fisheries Act and lack of capacity at BC DFO offices, it is time for the province to step up and provide protection to a resource so important to British Columbians.

Secondly, I would encourage the provincial government to change the measuring and reporting section to include a wider range of commercial users. There are several industries where the province has no idea how much water is being used and how much is being used relative to what is available (for example placer gold mining). There are many small to medium sized projects/industries that fall below the criteria for environmental assessments and yet still have the opportunity for significant environmental degradation. These industries are not well monitored, so requiring the proponent to provide measuring and reporting could be a great asset to compliance and enforcement and water allocation staff. Given the limited availability of water resource data in the northern section of the province, reporting could assist water managers in effectively limiting water use, balancing risk, and protecting aquatic health and First Nations values.

Lastly, I would like to see greater protection for water quality. The Environmental Management Act does not specifically identify water quality standards/thresholds. The provincial water quality standards should be clearly linked to legislation so that British Columbia’s water quantity and QUALITY are protected for generation to come.

Provincial Acts that provide guidelines are insufficient when dealing with a natural resource. This Act must have enforceable objectives with clear and effective penalties for misuse. The Act should also set a specified review term of the Act itself at a minimum of 10 years to ensure that citizens can adjust their water needs to the changing climate and social conditions.

All water licenses, regardless of the industry involved, must explicitly allow for the protection of existing fish spawning routes and other endangered water dwelling species. Similarly, community groundwater, aquifers and wells must have a guaranteed first right to all water. Ideally, it will be communities who have the final say on the issuing of groundwater licenses and the ability to revoke those licenses if due process determines there is a negative impact on the community water supply. Any grandfathered licenses issued to existing users must be reviewed in light of the new Act and subject to adjustment if deemed to be functioning at unsustainable levels.

In the public interest of this most precious natural resource, unused or unneeded licenses must be returned to the government for redistribution and cannot be traded. Private bulk water exports should not be permitted at all. If we ever need to export water on humanitarian grounds, it should be a government action.

The Right to Water:
Moving from International Recognition to Provincial Action

Dr. David R. Boyd
Adjunct Professor, School of Resources and Environmental Management,
Simon Fraser University, Canada
drboyd@sfu.ca

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Water Sustainability Act for BC. This piece of legislation is long overdue, in light of the fact that a minimum supply of potable water is a vital prerequisite for life, health, dignity, and the realization of other human rights (Gleick 1996; Howard and Bartram 2003; UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007). Globally, there are approximately one billion people who currently do not enjoy safe drinking water, thousands of children die every day from water-related illness, and climate change is expected to exacerbate these crises (World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, 2010). Even in the wealthiest nations on Earth, such as the United States and Canada, there are thousands of people who lack access to clean water and adequate sanitation (de Albuquerque 2011; Boyd 2011). This includes people in British Columbia.

Many experts agree that legal recognition of the human right to water is a significant step towards increased access to safe drinking water (Smets 2006; United Nations Development Programme, 2006; World Water Council 2010; Sultana and Loftus 2011). Therefore prominent individuals, governments, and civil society organizations have campaigned vigorously for recognition of this right at both the international and national levels (Dubreuil 2006; Barlow 2007; Gorbachev 2010). Examples include Mikhail Gorbachev, the government of Bolivia, and NGOs such as Green Cross International, the Council of Canadians, WaterAid, Rights and Humanity, and the Freshwater Action Network.

1. Defining the Right to Water

The right to water requires that all persons have affordable access to a supply of safe water in quantities adequate for essential personal and domestic uses, which include drinking, sanitation, clothes washing, food preparation, and personal and household hygiene (UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 2003). An adequate supply requires a minimum of 50 to 100 litres per person per day (Gleick 1996; Howard and Bartram 2003).

Recognition of the right to water requires governments to respect, protect, and fulfill the right. Respecting the right requires states to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the right (e.g. government cannot deny water services to individuals who cannot afford to pay). Protecting the right means ensuring that third parties do not interfere with or violate the right (e.g. through enacting and enforcing legislation that prevents water pollution). Fulfilling the right requires positive state action—such as investment in water treatment and distribution infrastructure—to ensure that the right is universally enjoyed (de Albuquerque, 2010).

The benefits of recognizing that water is a legally protected human right include:
-triggering stronger water laws, regulations, and policies;
-prioritizing resources for investment in water infrastructure, governance, and management;
-empowering citizens and communities to take part in decision-making processes related to water;
-clarifying the appropriate priorities in allocating scarce water supplies;
-providing a potential remedy for those whose right is being or may be violated;
-protecting water from pollution and other adverse impacts;
-preventing discrimination or neglect of under-privileged or marginalized communities; and
-providing a means of holding governments and corporations accountable (Bluemel, 2004; McCaffrey and Neville, 2009; Sultana and Loftus 2011).

It can be argued that the right to water need not be explicitly recognized because it is implicit in other widely acknowledged rights such as the rights to life, health, a healthy environment, and an adequate standard of living (Tully 2005). However, a more compelling argument is that ensuring sufficient attention and resources for the right to water requires that it be given the prominence and visibility of an explicit and distinct right (Langford 2006; Khalfan and Kiefer, 2008). It is also important to recognize that Canada is among a minority of countries globally that does not recognize its citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment or right to water.

There are many misconceptions regarding the right to water (Center on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2007). It does not entitle everyone to an unlimited supply of water at all times, in any place, under any circumstances. It may be limited by the concept of progressive implementation, and such reasonable and just limits as are necessary in a free and democratic society. The right to water does not obligate nations to share their water resources with other nations, as state sovereignty is unimpaired by recognition of the right. The fact that water is a human right does not mean that it should be free. Charging a price for water that reflects its full costs is justifiable on grounds of ecology, equity, and efficiency, subject to the imperative of providing a basic quantity of free or subsidized water for economically disadvantaged communities and individuals.

2. International Recognition of the Right to Water

Although mention of the right to water dates back to the Mar Del Plata Action Plan that emerged from the UN Conference on Water in 1977, there is not yet a global human rights treaty establishing this right in explicit, universal, legally binding terms. Almost all nations have endorsed non-binding political declarations that mention the right to water, such as the Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, endorsed by 177 States. Article 14(h) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women provides for the right “to enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to … water supply.” Article 24(2)(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child sets forth children’s right to “adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water.”

The right to water is not explicitly included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). However, implicit rights to water and sanitation are arguably included in s. 25 of the Universal Declaration (the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family) and ss. 11 and 12 (the rights to an adequate standard of living and health) of the ICESCR. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published General Comment No. 15 on the Right to Water in 2002, providing guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of the right (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2002). General Comment No. 15 identifies a suite of core obligations related to the right to water that are to be implemented immediately:
(a) To ensure access to the minimum essential amount of water that is sufficient and safe for personal and domestic uses to prevent disease;
(b) To ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups;
(c) To ensure physical access to water facilities or services that provide sufficient, safe and regular water; that have a sufficient number of water outlets to avoid prohibitive waiting times; and that are at a reasonable distance from the household;
(d) To ensure personal security is not threatened when having to physically access water;
(e) To ensure equitable distribution of all available water facilities and services;
(f) To adopt and implement a national water strategy and plan of action addressing the whole population;
(g) To monitor the extent of the realization, or the non-realization, of the right to water;
(h) To adopt relatively low-cost targeted water programmes to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups; and
(i) To take measures to prevent, treat, and control diseases linked to water, in particular ensuring access to adequate sanitation (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2002).

An earlier General Comment published by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirmed that governments have a core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, ‘minimum essential levels’ of each of the rights enunciated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1990).

Momentum toward explicit and binding international recognition of the right to water has accelerated in recent years. In 2007, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded “that it is now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right [necessary] to sustain life and health” (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007). In 2010, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution recognizing the right to water, with 124 nations voting in favour, none against, and 41 nations abstaining. The resolution stated “the right to safe and clean drinking water is a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights” (UN General Assembly, 2010). Later in 2010, the UN Human Rights Council issued a similar resolution, confirming that “the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and is inextricably related to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity” (UN Human Rights Council, 2010 ).

The recent UN General Assembly resolution on the right to water has already had a demonstrable effect. In January 2011, the Botswana Court of Appeal relied on the resolution in ruling that the constitutional rights of the Bushmen of the Kalahari were being violated by the government’s refusal to allow them to access a water source within a wildlife reserve where they resided (Matsipane Mosetlhanyane et al. v. Attorney General, 2011).

3. National Recognition of the Right to Water

At the national level, the right to water is also gaining broader legal recognition (Langford, Khalfan, Fairstein, and Jones, 2004). In 2007, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights observed that “an increasing number of States are recognizing safe drinking water as a human right in their constitutions, as well as national legislation, while national courts are enforcing it as a justiciable right” (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , 2007).

3.1. Constitutional Protection
Constitutional protection of the right to water can occur through explicit provisions or through recognition that the right is implicit in other human rights. Constitutional provisions explicitly requiring the protection and/or provision of clean water are found in at least 18 nations, and are increasingly prevalent in new constitutions. For example, both the Dominican Republic and Kenya enacted new constitutions in 2010 that recognize the right to water, as did Morocco in 2011. In South Africa, the right to water is explicitly articulated in its 1996 Constitution and is enforceable through the courts:
27. Health care, food, water, and social security
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to—
…
(b) sufficient food and water …
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of each of these rights (Wolfrum and Grote 2012).

Explicit constitutional recognition of the right to water has had a significant effect on South African water laws and policies. For example, the Water Services Act of 1997 states:
S. 3(1) Everyone has a right of access to basic water supply and basic sanitation.
(2) Every water services institution must take reasonable measures to realize these rights.
(3) Every water services authority must, in its water services development plan, provide for measures to realize these rights… (Act No. 108 of 1997).
South Africa’s recognition of the right to water also has contributed to major investments in infrastructure (Kok and Langford 2009; Du Plessis 2011). In 2000, South Africa also passed legislation implementing the procedural rights entrenched in the constitution (e.g. the right of access to information), which are essential for the full enjoyment of substantive rights. Recognition of the constitutional right to water is credited with spurring the extension of potable water to ten million South Africans (predominantly black and poor) in ten years (Smets 2006). Nelson Mandela describes increased access to safe drinking water for millions of South Africans as “amongst the most important achievements of democracy in our country” (Mandela 2002). In Uruguay, the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to clean water also prohibits privatization of the water supply. UN data show that 100% of Uruguayans enjoy access to improved sources of drinking water, consistent with their constitutional right (World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund 2010). Empirical data offers a compelling rebuttal to critics of the right to water.

In a number of nations where there is no explicit constitutional right to water courts have held that the right to water is an implicit but enforceable constitutional right (Boyd 2012). These nations include:
-Argentina (Picolotti 2005; Beatriz Mendoza 2008);
-Belgium (Judgment No. 36/98, 1998);
-Brazil (Supreme Court of Justice 2006),
-Costa Rica (Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional 2007);
-Colombia (Defensoria del Pueblo 2009);
-India (Narain 2010);
-Indonesia (Judicial Review of the Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources);
-Israel (Zarchin 2011);
-Nepal (Belbase and Thapa 2007); and
-Pakistan (General Secretary West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union, 1994).
Courts in these nations based their decisions on the fact that access to safe drinking water is a fundamental prerequisite to the enjoyment of other human rights, including the right to life and the right to live in a healthy environment. The right to life, which arguably includes an implicit right to water, is universally found in national constitutions (Law and Versteeg 2011). There are more than 90 nations whose constitutions now explicitly recognize the right to live in a healthy environment (Boyd 2012). The right to clean water is regarded as an integral element of this broader right. Empirical evidence demonstrates that there is a strong positive correlation between environmental provisions in constitutions and superior environmental performance (Boyd 2012).

For example, in Argentina, based on the constitutional right to a healthy environment, courts have ordered governments to provide communities with potable water, construct drinking water treatment facilities, provide medical treatment for individuals harmed by contaminated drinking water, and carry out environmental remediation of polluted watersheds. An Argentine case involving Chacras de la Merced, a poor community whose drinking water was being contaminated by inadequate wastewater treatment in an upstream municipality, illustrates the potential for using the right to a healthy environment to advance the right to water (Picolotti 2005). An ENGO brought a lawsuit against the upstream municipality and the province on behalf of local residents asserting a violation of their constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Court agreed that there was a violation of the right and ordered the government to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant and, in the interim, provide a supply of clean water to the residents of Chacras de la Merced. The court-ordered infrastructure improvements were completed, and in an interesting development, the municipality passed a bylaw mandating that all future sewage and sanitation tax revenues must be re-invested in upgrading and maintaining the sewage system. Similarly, on the basis of the right to a healthy environment the Supreme Court of Argentina ordered federal, provincial, and municipal governments to clean up and restore the heavily polluted Matanza-Riachuelo watershed, home to millions of people (Beatriz Mendoza 2008). The World Bank has provided $840 million for water and sanitation infrastructure as a direct result of the Supreme Court’s judgment (World Bank 2010).

Constitutional recognition of the right to water does not create an absolute right to water. Courts will take into account the specific circumstances of a case and the challenges facing a government in determining whether the right is being violated (Mazibuko et al. v. The City of Johannesburg 2010).

3.2. Legislative Recognition
Dozens of countries explicitly recognize the right to water in national legislation or policy, including Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritania, Namibia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Ukraine, and Venezuela (Langford, Khalfan, Fairstein and Jones, 2004; Smets 2006). For example, France enacted a new law in 2006 that explicitly recognizes the right to water:
Art. 1. Water is the common heritage of the nation. Its protection, enhancement and development, in accordance with the balance of nature, are of general interest.
In the framework of laws and regulations previously established, the use of water belongs to every physical person, for food and hygiene, and everyone has the right to access to drinking water under conditions economically acceptable to all.
The costs of water use, including environmental costs and the resources themselves, are borne by users, taking into account social, environmental, and economic consequences and geographical and climate conditions (Government of France 2006).

In nations where the rule of law is respected and there are adequate resources available, it can be expected that laws and policies recognizing the right to water will be implemented and enforced, resulting in greater access and less human suffering. The right to water is also being recognized at the sub-national level, with the Northwest Territories being the Canadian pioneer in this regard. In 2007, the 15th Legislative Assembly of the NWT declared, “all peoples have a fundamental human right to water that
must be recognized nationally and internationally, including the development of appropriate institutional mechanisms to ensure that these rights are implemented” (Government of the Northwest Territories 2010).
Conclusion

Incorporating the human right to water in BC’s proposed Water Sustainability Act is not a silver bullet that will automatically address British Columbia’s water challenges. However it is a powerful tool that can be used to focus attention and resources on improving access to water for those individuals and communities who currently endure the hardships imposed by the absence of safe water. It also has the potential to provide political power and legal remedies for individuals and communities whose right to water is not being respected or fulfilled. Finally, recognizing the right to water will ensure that all British Columbians, present and future, have a voice in the management and conservation of this precious natural bounty, the source of all life.

References
Barlow, M. 2007. Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Barlow, M. 2011. Our Right to Water: A People’s Guide to Implementing the United Nations’ Recognition of the Right to Water and Sanitation. Ottawa: Council of Canadians.

Beatriz Silvia Mendoza and others v. National Government and Others (Damages stemming from contamination of the Matanza-Riachuelo River), 2008, M. 1569, 8 July 2008 (Supreme Court of Argentina).

Belbase, N and L.B. Thapa. 2007. “Nepal,” in P. Moore and F. Pastakia, eds. Environmental Justice and Rural Communities: Studies from India and Nepal. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature, pp. 65-108.

Bluemel, E.B. 2004. “The Implications of Formulating a Human Right to Water,” Ecology Law Quarterly 31(4): 957-1006.

Boyd, D.R. 2011. “No Taps, No Toilets: First Nations and the Constitutional Right to Water in Canada,” McGill Law Journal 57(1): 81-134.

Boyd, D.R. 2012. The Environmental Rights Revolution: Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Center on Housing Rights and Evictions. 2007. Manual on the Right to Water and Sanitation. Geneva: COHRE.

de Albuquerque, C. 2010. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: Frequently Asked Questions. Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. Geneva: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

de Albuquerque, C. 2011. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation: Mission to the United States of America. A/HRC/18/33/Add.4. Geneva: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Defensoria del Pueblo (Ombudsman). 2009. Diagnostic del Cumplimiento del Derecho Humano al Agua en Colombia. Bogota: Defensoria del Pueblo.

Dubreuil, C. 2006. The Right to Water: From Concept to Implementation. Marseilles: World Water Council.

Du Plessis, A. 2010. “A Government in Deep Water? Some Thoughts on the State’s Duties in Relation to Water Arising from South Africa’s Bill of Rights,” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 19(3): 316-27.

General Secretary West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union v. Director Industries and Mineral Development (1994) SCMR 2061 (SC).

Gleick, P.H. 1996. “Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs”, Water International 21: 83-92.

Gorbachev, M. 2010. “The Right to Water,” New York Times, July 16, 2010.

Government of France. 2006. Law No. 2006-1772, respecting water and aquatic environments.

Government of the Northwest Territories. 2010. Northern Voices, Northern Waters. NWT Water Stewardship Strategy. http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/documents/content/NWT_Water_Stewardship_Strategy.pdf

Harvard Law Review. 2007. “What Price for the Priceless? Implementing the Justiciability of the Right to Water,” Harv. L . Rev. 120(4): 1067-1088.

Howard, G. and J. Bartram. 2003. Domestic Water Quantity, Service, Level and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Judgment No. 36/98, 1 April 1998, Belgian Court of Arbitration.

Judicial Review of the Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Judgment of 13th July 2005, No. 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004.

Khalfan, A. and T. Kiefer. 2008. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: Legal Basis, Practical Rationale and Definition. Geneva: Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions.

Khalfan, A. and T. Kiefer. 2008. Why Canada must recognize the human right to water and sanitation. Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

Kok, A. and M. Langford. 2009. “Water,” in S. Woolman, T. Roux and M. Bishop, eds. Constitutional Law of South Africa, 2nd ed., Vol. 4. Cape Town: Juta & Co.

Langford, M. 2006. “Ambition that overleaps itself? A Response to Stephen Tully’s ‘Critique’ of the General Comment on the Right to Water,” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 26(3): 433-459.

Langford, M., A. Khalfan, C. Fairstein and H. Jones, 2004. Legal Resources for the Right to Water: International and National Standards. Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

Law, D.S. and M. Versteeg. 2011. The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism. California Law Review 99, 5: 1163-1257.

Mandela, M. 2002. “No Water, No Future,” Speech at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 28 August 2002.

Marcus, D. 2006. “The Normative Development of Socioeconomic Rights Through Supranational Adjudication,” Stan. J. Int’l L. 42(1): 53-102.

Matsipane Mosetlhanyane et al. v. Attorney General (2011), No CACLB-074-10, 27 January 2011, Botswana Court of Appeal.

Mazibuko et al. v. The City of Johannesburg et al. (2010) 3 BCLR 239 (South Africa Constitutional Court).

McCaffrey, S.C. and K.J. Neville. 2009. “Small Capacity and Big Responsibilities: Financial and Legal Implication of a Human Right to Water for Developing Countries,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 21(4): 679-704.

Narain, V. 2010. “Water as a Fundamental Right: The Perspective from India,” Vermont Law Review 34(4): 917-26.

Picolotti, R. 2005. “The Right to Safe Drinking Water as a Human Right,” Housing and ESC Rights Quarterly 2(1): 1-5.

Smets, H. 2006. The Right to Water in National Legislations. Paris: Agence Française de Développement.

Sultana, F. and A. Loftus. 2011. The Right to Water: Politics, Governance, and Social Struggles. Taylor & Francis.

Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional. 2007. Nº 02154 de las 09:49 hrs. del 16 de febrero, 2007. Municipalidad de Aserrí (Costa Rica).

Supreme Court of Justice Appeal No. 70012091278 (Rio Grande do Sul), 25 Jan. 2006 (Brazil).

Tully, S. 2005. “A Human Right to Access Water? A Critique of General Comment No. 15,” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 23(1): 35-63.

United Nations Children’s Fund. 2006. Progress for Children: A Report Card on Water and Sanitation. New York: UNICEF.

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 1990. General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations. E/1991/23.

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 2002. General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water. UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.

United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Human Development Report 2006, Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. New York: UN.

United Nations General Assembly. 2010. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation. July 26, 2010. A/64/L.63/Rev.1.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2007. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments. Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. UN Doc. A/HRC/6/3.

United Nations Human Rights Council. 2010. Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. Sept. 24, 2010. A/HRC/15/L.14.

Wolfrum, R. and R. Grote, eds. G.H. Flanz, Ed. Emeritus. 2012. Constitutions of the Countries of the World. New York: Oceana Law.

World Bank. 2009. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Adaptable Loan Program in the Amount of US$840 Million to the Argentine Republic for the Matanza­Riachuelo Basin Sustain­ able Development Project, Phase 1. Report No. 48443-AR. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Health Organization. 2011. Drinking-Water, Sanitation, and Health. WHA Resolution 64/24, UNWHAOR, 64th Session, UN Doc. A64/24.
World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. Geneva/New York: WHO/UNICEF.

World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. 2010. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2010 Update. Geneva: WHO/UNICEF.

World Water Council. 2010. A New Water Politics: World Water Council 2010-2012 Strategy. Marseille: WWC.

Zarchin, T. 2011. “Court rules water a human right,” Haaretz Newspaper, June 6, 2011.

The two points that I’d like to make are to ensure that:

– environmental management of our water flows and water tables are scientifically mapped and verified, and results are transparent and public
– there is an integrated principle, verified, for the sustainable use of water that meets the current and future eco-system needs of plants and animals that depend on that water
– pricing of water is financially sustainable in that it covers the cost of water management, scientific research, verification, public consultations, environmental assessments and any environmental reconstruction/repair that may need to be covered in case of issues

To the Ministry of Environment Water Protection and Sustainability Branch

Please consider this my feedback on the proposed Water Sustainability Act:

KEY CONCERNS – Not in order of any priority

From the outset, this proposal has been three years in the making while the government has only given the public and various other stakeholder groups one month to respond. This does not make sense. The imposed timeline is far too short of a time period for any meaningful responses from the majority to be received, compiled and reviewed. The deadline should therefore be extended to April 1, 2014 at minimum.

UBID notes that this is a “proposal” only. The proposal is so huge and unwieldy it is difficult not to believe the intended purpose is to baffle the reader. There is no legislation or regulations attached. From our perspective, “the devil will be in the yet to be received details”. Therefore, UBID urges the government to consult once again very broadly with all stakeholders prior to the actual presenting of the legislation and regulations. Legislation should prioritize public health and safety, (quality and sustainability), above all other interests which this current proposal does not do.

The Public Trust Doctrine must be embedded within the legislation. The Public Trust Doctrine does not appear within said documents and this is a necessity if the Water Act is going to be meaningful. Water, and access to water, belongs to the Commons. The people are the Commons. Water belongs to the people of this province and that must be clearly and distinctly recognized within the Water Act.

Environmental Flow needs and critical environmental flow must be embedded in Provincial Water Objectives which it currently is not. Without our environment, there would be no economy. There must be clear and legally enforceable environmental flow protections that apply across the province in watersheds where, in particular, EFN’s are under threat.

Why is it necessary to have Water rights and anything to do with Water enshrined in FOURTEEN Provincial Acts? There should be one Water Act with any and all water related issues imbedded within the one Act instead of having 14 Acts that affect our water. This is blatantly harmful. If the government is going to leave 14 Acts in place to deal with our water, then these other 13 Acts require revision to give the ‘Water Sustainability Act” the top priority it should have.

There should be a Ministry of Water where responsibility for this resource is under the control of one Ministry.

Exemptions must not be given to oil, gas and forestry and any other industry/corporation. These exemptions, given to industry, are being enshrined within the Water Act and are unacceptable.

On page 64 of this proposal it states: “(e.g., allow for delegation of some water management activities or decisions to people or agencies outside the provincial government or more than one person or agency with the authority to exercise the same powers);” This is unbelievably vague – what “people”, what “agencies” beyond the local government, responsible for managing their water resources?

Explicit provisions must be made that enable local watershed governance, whether it is on Crown Land or Private Land. Such a provision must take into consideration first and foremost, Environmental Flow Needs (EFN’S). In addition, funds must be provided by the Provincial Government to make it possible for Local Governance Boards to operate. Along with this, there must be enforcement rights given to a Local Governance structure. Currently and under your proposal, the preciseness necessary is entirely missing and currently the Provincial Government provides little if any enforcement of rules they may make. This must change if we are truly going to protect our water resources and the surrounding environs on which the sustainability of water relies.

FITFIR must be removed.

Groundwater! As a province, one of the very last in the country, the government has finally recognized that our groundwater (aquifers) must also be protected. However, the government is proposing to place groundwater under the FITFIR portion of an Act! Why would the government do this?

The Water Act must make clear that there is no co modification of water.

The government needs to take the responsibility to determine the capacity of our water resources.

Water is the key to all life. Water underpins economic growth and community prosperity. Many other countries have enshrined explicit protections for environmental flows, rigorous water planning and promotion of conservation, improved governance more focused on citizen engagement in decision making at the watershed level, and an emphasis placed on accountability and effective oversight. Under this current proposal, we are far removed from achieving these objectives.

In closing, these items are brief in nature, because of being allotted such a short timeline in which to respond.

Sincerely,
Marie Gaudreau