Tuesday, September 26, 2006
WATER WAR II
WATER WAR II
By Ian Lowden B.A., M.Sc.
Klowden@shaw.ca
I received much comment and a large number of e-mails over the article ‘Water Wars’. It is an issue where everyone seems to have an opinion – not surprising – because it is an issue, which touches everyone. The issue of water on Gabriola is probably the most significant environmental issue we face. It is an issue which not only impacts those who need water deliveries and those who live near the extraction point but will also eventually affect population growth on the island as well as house prices and the whole real estate market. It is also an issue, which brings out a lot of anger – not surprising, given that access to water is an issue which wars have been fought over throughout human history. It is, therefore not surprising that tempers are flaring. It is such an important issue to all of us that it can’t be decided on by who can generate the most support or who can sell their opinion most effectively. It is an issue that must be decided on rationally and must be regulated fairly and effectively.
Luckily for us we live in a society that is based on the rule of law so it is unlikely that the water issue here on Gabriola will become violent, regardless of the hype. We are extremely fortunate that we live in a society based on law and democracy; there are many places that don’t have our freedoms and rights. Likewise, regardless of which of the many sides of this issue we might find ourselves on, it behoves us to appreciate that we have a democratic process for resolving issues and a tradition of respect for our rule of law. Some people may say that this is not an issue that should be settled by passing laws, but I very much doubt that those same people would be willing to live in a nation where laws passed by duly elected representatives was not the norm. In fact, many of us (and our ancestors) came to this nation because they wanted to escape societies were decisions made on the basis of who could stir up the most emotion.
This situation of availability of water and the rules that govern that availability must be decided rationally, democratically, and with regard for the rights of all parties. We have a situation were duly elected representatives created a by-law intended to monitor the water sales industry and attempting to ensure that everyone has access to water not just those who can afford to buy it. The fact is that an estimated 400 households depend, at least in part, on delivered water. Regardless, of the wisdom of buying property that does not have an adequate amount of groundwater, these households exist, and the people who own them bought in the belief that water delivery would be available. Granted that availability of water should have been part of the original zoning, and that sellers of these lots should have made purchasers aware that water delivery was not guaranteed, (I understand that at one time water was trucked in from Nanaimo). Perhaps people who bought these properties should have been better informed, but regardless of how the situation developed, the problem still exists and needs to be solved.
I can also respect the view of water dealers that feel they should be exempt from regulations and restrictions imposed after they had already been in business. Personally, I normally view the decisions of my elected representatives and especially their paid bureaucrats with some suspicion, and am sometimes reluctant to accept the necessity of any of their decisions. I wish that we could solve these issues without laws and courts and judges, unfortunately we as a species have not progressed to the point where this is always possible. I also support a persons right to protest by civil disobedience, a right that I have exercised a great deal in my own life. While supporting the right to disobey, I also believe that those who choose this path must do so recognizing and accepting the consequences of this action. Those who choose to disobey a law have the right to have that law’s validity decided upon in court if that is the path they believe they should take.
I can also respect a person’s view that as they were already operating their business before the law was made that they should be exempt under the ‘grandfather rule’. While I respect their view I don’t necessarily share it. I think issues affecting the environment are too important to exempt anyone. Should those businesses that have clear-cut most of the province be allowed to continue simply because that is the way they have always done it? How about industries that have for half a century dumped their toxic waste into rivers? How about car manufactures and emission control? Should all these businesses be exempt simply because they were in business before the problem of the effect on the environment was recognized? I think not! I think we cannot afford blanket exemptions on environmental issues.
Then there are those who want the law waved on personal grounds. I agree that the present operator of the water selling business is a good and responsible citizen, but what if he sells his business? Simply, because someone is a good person and not charging outrageous prices is not reason to exempt him or her from regulations as important as those that govern our water supply. He has a right to challenge the law and if he wins the rules will have to change but if he chooses to go to court he must also accept that the court may rule against him.
I have questioned the Trust closely on this issue. I have asked them to listen to his concerns and they are willing. I have asked whether he and others had an opportunity to have their views taken into account in forming the by-law. I have been assured that the by-law was made mostly on recommendations from the Groundwater Committee and that the operator of the present water supplier had been part of that committee and had adequate opportunity to express his concerns should he have chosen to do so. I have also suggested to the Trust that it is should not be too late to sit down with this person with or without a mediator and work through his concerns. So their appears to have been two years worth of time for people to have input into the by-law, if people had chosen to do so. I also questioned the wisdom of using a Temporary Use Permit as a way of regulating water sales. I thought a more permanent By-law would have been better. The answer I received to that question satisfied me. Apparently, the reason that a TUP was used is because no one on the local Island Trust is an expert or claims to be an expert on hydrology, and recognizing both their limitations and the fact that conditions affecting our groundwater may change, the Trust felt that a Temporary Use Permit would be more useful to deal with changes in conditions and our knowledge of groundwater problems. Explained that way it makes sense to have a more flexible set of regulations. It is not arrogance that generated the use of a TUP, it was recognition of their own limitations and recognition that changes may occur and that the regulation of water extraction should reflect the fact that conditions as well as knowledge are evolving. In fact, the more I looked at it the more sense the use of a TUP made.
So where does that leave us? Water extraction can affect neighboring wells. The amount of groundwater varies according to how much rain we get. Some form of regulation is required to safeguard everyone’s right to water. A TUP approach was decided upon as being the most flexible way of regulating bulk water sales. Mr Foley has every right to challenge the decision and have the matter decided in court. There is no current shortage of water delivery and there won’t be while this whole issue goes to court – which will take at least one and probably two years. The water sales industry is a growth industry, especially as population increases, therefore there will be other people entering the business. So regardless of the court decision, water sales will be continuing. Regulation of bulk water extraction needs to be regulated and the need for regulation will increase as time goes by. The Island Trust has the mandate to ensure the equitable management of our groundwater resource. ‘Grandfathering’ people in environmental issues has seldom been found to be workable and having water sellers operating under different sets of rules is neither equitable nor desirable.
Given all of the above, I don’t see any reason for anyone needing to worry – water sales will continue. We have a simple situation – someone is exercising their right to challenge a by-law in court. That is all that is happening. Why this became a front-page news item is curious – people challenge laws all the time. Whether the court upholds the by-law or not, it will not affect water sales. Why some people seem to be trying to scare people that they won’t be able to buy water is also a bit of a mystery. I suspect that there are people who are using this issue for their own ends; and personally I find manipulation of peoples fears and scare-mongering tactics, to be not only reprehensible, but also inevitably doomed to failure. We live in a democracy bound by the rule of law -a fact envied by most of the world - instead of trying to subvert our system perhaps we should appreciate how lucky we are to live in such a system.
Personally. I think that a mountain is being made of a molehill on this issue. I still believe the best way to work out disagreements is face to face, and I refuse to believe that this issue cannot be worked out by frank and honest discussion by the people involved. I also believe that this is an issue that should never have happened, but, as it has happened let’s solve it by use of the system because it sure can’t be solved by working on the emotional level. Let’s also try and keep a little perspective on this issue – water sales will continue but there will be some necessary regulation to protect a natural resource. It absolutely amazes me that given that we are all fortunate enough to live here, there are people who have nothing better to do with their time and their lives than to exploit and encourage divisiveness. Life is short enough without wasting it by creating unnecessary problems.
By Ian Lowden B.A., M.Sc.
Klowden@shaw.ca
I received much comment and a large number of e-mails over the article ‘Water Wars’. It is an issue where everyone seems to have an opinion – not surprising – because it is an issue, which touches everyone. The issue of water on Gabriola is probably the most significant environmental issue we face. It is an issue which not only impacts those who need water deliveries and those who live near the extraction point but will also eventually affect population growth on the island as well as house prices and the whole real estate market. It is also an issue, which brings out a lot of anger – not surprising, given that access to water is an issue which wars have been fought over throughout human history. It is, therefore not surprising that tempers are flaring. It is such an important issue to all of us that it can’t be decided on by who can generate the most support or who can sell their opinion most effectively. It is an issue that must be decided on rationally and must be regulated fairly and effectively.
Luckily for us we live in a society that is based on the rule of law so it is unlikely that the water issue here on Gabriola will become violent, regardless of the hype. We are extremely fortunate that we live in a society based on law and democracy; there are many places that don’t have our freedoms and rights. Likewise, regardless of which of the many sides of this issue we might find ourselves on, it behoves us to appreciate that we have a democratic process for resolving issues and a tradition of respect for our rule of law. Some people may say that this is not an issue that should be settled by passing laws, but I very much doubt that those same people would be willing to live in a nation where laws passed by duly elected representatives was not the norm. In fact, many of us (and our ancestors) came to this nation because they wanted to escape societies were decisions made on the basis of who could stir up the most emotion.
This situation of availability of water and the rules that govern that availability must be decided rationally, democratically, and with regard for the rights of all parties. We have a situation were duly elected representatives created a by-law intended to monitor the water sales industry and attempting to ensure that everyone has access to water not just those who can afford to buy it. The fact is that an estimated 400 households depend, at least in part, on delivered water. Regardless, of the wisdom of buying property that does not have an adequate amount of groundwater, these households exist, and the people who own them bought in the belief that water delivery would be available. Granted that availability of water should have been part of the original zoning, and that sellers of these lots should have made purchasers aware that water delivery was not guaranteed, (I understand that at one time water was trucked in from Nanaimo). Perhaps people who bought these properties should have been better informed, but regardless of how the situation developed, the problem still exists and needs to be solved.
I can also respect the view of water dealers that feel they should be exempt from regulations and restrictions imposed after they had already been in business. Personally, I normally view the decisions of my elected representatives and especially their paid bureaucrats with some suspicion, and am sometimes reluctant to accept the necessity of any of their decisions. I wish that we could solve these issues without laws and courts and judges, unfortunately we as a species have not progressed to the point where this is always possible. I also support a persons right to protest by civil disobedience, a right that I have exercised a great deal in my own life. While supporting the right to disobey, I also believe that those who choose this path must do so recognizing and accepting the consequences of this action. Those who choose to disobey a law have the right to have that law’s validity decided upon in court if that is the path they believe they should take.
I can also respect a person’s view that as they were already operating their business before the law was made that they should be exempt under the ‘grandfather rule’. While I respect their view I don’t necessarily share it. I think issues affecting the environment are too important to exempt anyone. Should those businesses that have clear-cut most of the province be allowed to continue simply because that is the way they have always done it? How about industries that have for half a century dumped their toxic waste into rivers? How about car manufactures and emission control? Should all these businesses be exempt simply because they were in business before the problem of the effect on the environment was recognized? I think not! I think we cannot afford blanket exemptions on environmental issues.
Then there are those who want the law waved on personal grounds. I agree that the present operator of the water selling business is a good and responsible citizen, but what if he sells his business? Simply, because someone is a good person and not charging outrageous prices is not reason to exempt him or her from regulations as important as those that govern our water supply. He has a right to challenge the law and if he wins the rules will have to change but if he chooses to go to court he must also accept that the court may rule against him.
I have questioned the Trust closely on this issue. I have asked them to listen to his concerns and they are willing. I have asked whether he and others had an opportunity to have their views taken into account in forming the by-law. I have been assured that the by-law was made mostly on recommendations from the Groundwater Committee and that the operator of the present water supplier had been part of that committee and had adequate opportunity to express his concerns should he have chosen to do so. I have also suggested to the Trust that it is should not be too late to sit down with this person with or without a mediator and work through his concerns. So their appears to have been two years worth of time for people to have input into the by-law, if people had chosen to do so. I also questioned the wisdom of using a Temporary Use Permit as a way of regulating water sales. I thought a more permanent By-law would have been better. The answer I received to that question satisfied me. Apparently, the reason that a TUP was used is because no one on the local Island Trust is an expert or claims to be an expert on hydrology, and recognizing both their limitations and the fact that conditions affecting our groundwater may change, the Trust felt that a Temporary Use Permit would be more useful to deal with changes in conditions and our knowledge of groundwater problems. Explained that way it makes sense to have a more flexible set of regulations. It is not arrogance that generated the use of a TUP, it was recognition of their own limitations and recognition that changes may occur and that the regulation of water extraction should reflect the fact that conditions as well as knowledge are evolving. In fact, the more I looked at it the more sense the use of a TUP made.
So where does that leave us? Water extraction can affect neighboring wells. The amount of groundwater varies according to how much rain we get. Some form of regulation is required to safeguard everyone’s right to water. A TUP approach was decided upon as being the most flexible way of regulating bulk water sales. Mr Foley has every right to challenge the decision and have the matter decided in court. There is no current shortage of water delivery and there won’t be while this whole issue goes to court – which will take at least one and probably two years. The water sales industry is a growth industry, especially as population increases, therefore there will be other people entering the business. So regardless of the court decision, water sales will be continuing. Regulation of bulk water extraction needs to be regulated and the need for regulation will increase as time goes by. The Island Trust has the mandate to ensure the equitable management of our groundwater resource. ‘Grandfathering’ people in environmental issues has seldom been found to be workable and having water sellers operating under different sets of rules is neither equitable nor desirable.
Given all of the above, I don’t see any reason for anyone needing to worry – water sales will continue. We have a simple situation – someone is exercising their right to challenge a by-law in court. That is all that is happening. Why this became a front-page news item is curious – people challenge laws all the time. Whether the court upholds the by-law or not, it will not affect water sales. Why some people seem to be trying to scare people that they won’t be able to buy water is also a bit of a mystery. I suspect that there are people who are using this issue for their own ends; and personally I find manipulation of peoples fears and scare-mongering tactics, to be not only reprehensible, but also inevitably doomed to failure. We live in a democracy bound by the rule of law -a fact envied by most of the world - instead of trying to subvert our system perhaps we should appreciate how lucky we are to live in such a system.
Personally. I think that a mountain is being made of a molehill on this issue. I still believe the best way to work out disagreements is face to face, and I refuse to believe that this issue cannot be worked out by frank and honest discussion by the people involved. I also believe that this is an issue that should never have happened, but, as it has happened let’s solve it by use of the system because it sure can’t be solved by working on the emotional level. Let’s also try and keep a little perspective on this issue – water sales will continue but there will be some necessary regulation to protect a natural resource. It absolutely amazes me that given that we are all fortunate enough to live here, there are people who have nothing better to do with their time and their lives than to exploit and encourage divisiveness. Life is short enough without wasting it by creating unnecessary problems.
