UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

What role for regulation? : The case of groundwater governance on the Gulf and San Juan Islands Cohen, Alice 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-0366.pdf [ 6.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100709.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100709-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100709-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100709-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100709-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100709-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100709-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100709-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100709.ris

Full Text

W H A T R O L E F O R R E G U L A T I O N ? T H E C A S E OF G R O U N D W A T E R G O V E R N A N C E O N T H E G U L F A N D S A N J U A N I S L A N D S by A L I C E C O H E N B . A . (Hon), M c G i l l University, 2003 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Resource Management and Environmental Studies) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T S H C O L U M B I A August 2007 © Al ice Cohen, 2007 ABSTRACT This thesis addresses the following research question: What is the role of regulation in the on-the-ground management of groundwater resources? In answering this question, the thesis used the case study of the Gul f and San Juan islands in the Strait o f Georgia. The archipelago is divided by an international boundary, with the Gul f Islands in British Columbia and the San Juan Islands in Washington. The two groups of islands are heavily groundwater dependent and are climatologically and hydrogeologically similar, yet islands in each jurisdiction address their water issues through two very different water management frameworks. Groundwater is a salient issue on either side o f Jhe border, and biophysical conditions and demographic pressures lead to regular summer water shortages and saltwater intrusion. This study used two primary methods to address the research question. The first was a comprehensive legislative review of applicable legislation and regulation in each jurisdiction; this review would suggest that the different management frameworks would lead to different management practices. However, the second method - interviews - shows that the islands share similar management challenges and that groundwater is managed similarly on both sides of the border despite these different regulatory frameworks. Examples of similar management practices include unregulated private wells, local governmental support for rainwater harvesting, bulk water hauling, and navigation of the persistent challenges associated with real estate development and groundwater use. The research generated the hypothesis that local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack o f enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. The final chapter o f the thesis discusses the possible implications of this hypothesis for water governance more generally and offers recommendations to policy-makers. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT '. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Hi LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES , vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. FRAMING THE ISSUES: EVIDENCE FROM THE LITERATURE .5 2.1 WATER (AND GROUNDWATER) GOVERNANCE 5 2.2 SCALES OF GOVERNANCE 8 2.3 ENFORCEMENT .' -.. 11 2.4 POLICY-MANAGEMENT CONNECTIONS 12 2.5 MANAGING THE DEMAND, N O T THE SUPPLY ..' 14 2.6 EXAMINING B.C., WASHINGTON, AND THE CASE STUDY ISLANDS 15 2.7 SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE 17 3. THE CASE STUDY 19 3.1 T H E CASE STUDY: MULTIPLE PRESSURES ON AN CRITICAL AND UNCERTAIN RESOURCE 22 3.1.1 Exploring Case Studies 22 3.1.2 Climatic Pressures: The Role of Local Biophysical Characteristics 24 3.1.3 Demographic Pressures: Population, Residency Timing, and Employment 27 3.1.4 Water under Pressure: The Combined Effects of Climate and Demographics 30 3.2 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 33 3.3 INTERVIEWS AND WORKSHOP : • 39 3.3.1 Interview Methods: Theory and Application 40 3.3.2 Shared Management Challenges 43 3.3.3 Salient Differences 56 3.3.4 Conclusions: Shared Management Issues Despite Jurisdictional Differences 60 3.4 OVERLAYING THE DATA: DEVIATION FROM REGULATORY INTENT, LOCAL INITIATIVES, AND ON-THE-GROUND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 62. 3.4.1 Washington 63 3.4.2 British Columbia 68 3.4.3 From Shared Management Challenges to Shared Management Practices: Regulatory Deviation and the Role of the Local 74 4. DISCUSSION .79 4.1 THEORY AND PRACTICE: GENERALIZABILITY AND A NEW HYPOTHESIS 79 4.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER GOVERNANCE 81 4.2.1 Disconnect Between Policy and Management 82 4.2.2 Scales of Regulation and Management ; 84 4.2.3 Enforcement -. 90 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 92 4.3.1 Possibilities for Learning Lessons across the Border 92 4.3.2 General Recommendations Stemming from Implications 94 4.3.3 Concrete Recommendations to the Province 98 4.4 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 101 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 102 5.1 Literary Sources 102 5.2 Legislative Sources 108 5.3 Internet Sources ; : 109 i i i APPENDIX 1: INITIAL LETTER OF CONTACT 110 APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORM I l l APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE 112 APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 114 j APPENDIX 5: EFFECTS OF METERING ON WATER CONSUMPTION 115 APPENDIX 6: MAY 15 t h WORKSHOP REPORT 116 APPENDIX 7: BEHAVIOURAL RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD APPROVAL FORMS 124 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: ISLAND RAINFALL AND AQUIFER TYPE 27 TABLE 2: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON 34 TABLE 3: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ; 36 TABLE 4: DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS FOR SIMILAR ISSUES 39 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF SHARED AND DIFFERING MANAGEMENT ISSUES 61 TABLE 6: DEVIATION FROM REGULATORY INTENT: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND CURRENT PRACTICES IN WASHINGTON —65 TABLE 7: DEVIATION FROM REGULATORY INTENT: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND CURRENT PRACTICES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 70 TABLE 8: FROM LEGISLATION TO PRACTICE: T H E ROLE OF INTERVENING LOCAL FACTORS 77 TABLE 9: PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTIONS (ANONYMOUS) - 1 1 4 v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: MAP OF CASE STUDY ISLANDS 21 FIGURE 2 E M P L O Y M E N T ON THE GULF ISLANDS 29 FIGURE 3: MONTHLY RAINFALL AND ISLAND POPULATION, HORNBY ISLAND 31 FIGURE 4: GALIANO ISLAND OBSERVATION W E L L RECHARGE DATA 32 FIGURE 5: T H E ROLE OF DECISION-MAKING: BETWEEN POLICY AND MANAGEMENT " 84 FIGURE 6: ADDING MANAGEMENT TO THE DIALOGUE ' % vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people I wish to thank for helping with the development of this thesis. I would like to thank my supervisory committee for their time and expertise throughout the research process. Thank you to my supervisor, Karen Bakker, for her invaluable advice and support. Thanks to Hans Schreier for his hydrogeological expertise, Richard Paisley for his international legal perspective, and Linda Nowlan for her contributions as an external reviewer. Faculty, staff, and student colleagues in the department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies were instrumental in helping to form ideas and navigate logistics; I could not have asked for a more interdisciplinary and supportive academic environment. Financial support from the UBC HSS small grants program, the B.C. Ministry of Environment, and the Andrew R. Thompson Natural Resources Law Program is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the enthusiastic participation of groundwater experts on the Gulf and San Juan Islands. I hope that the contents of this thesis will help to support you in your very valuable work. v i i "In terms of quantity, everybody just hopes for the best" -Participant 29 "The choice between more government and less government is a false choice. What Canada really needs is better governance... " (Boyd 2003: 231) 1. INTRODUCTION The Gul f and San Juan Islands in the Strait of Georgia have seen a dramatic spike in interest in groundwater resources in recent years. Driven by increasing water shortages in the summer, legal action over water rights, saltwater intrusion, and unprecedented development and population growth on the islands, concern over the islands' freshwater resources has been an issue o f increasing importance. The Canada-US border that cuts through the archipelago of islands off the west coast of North America divides the group of islands into two political jurisdictions. Islands located south of the border in Washington are called the San Juan Islands; those north of the border in B . C . are the Gul f Islands. However, because they are part of the same chain of islands, they share nearly identical hydrogeology, climate, and populations. This unique confluence of physical and political geography offers an exceptional research opportunity to examine the role of groundwater policy in a controlled environment with two jurisdictions subject to two very different regulatory frameworks. The purpose of the research was to answer the central research question: what is the role o f regulation in the on-the-ground management of groundwater resources in the G u l f and San Juan Islands? In answering this question, the research also explored how 1 groundwater is managed on each set of islands in order to distil lessons learned from each side of the border. It is anticipated that the research wi l l contribute not only to the relevant academic literature, but that it w i l l also have practical applications to solving a question of increasing concern on the islands. In sum, then, the research objectives were: (1) to better understand the relationship between regulation and on-the-ground management practices; (2) to explore existing best practices in place on either side of the border; (3) to use the findings of these to contribute to the resource management and environmental policy literature; and (4) to provide practical insights into the management of a critical resource. Two central research methods were used to approach the research question. The first was a comprehensive review of the relevant policies, legislation and regulations in each of the two jurisdictions. The second was a series of participant interviews conducted in June 2006 (see Appendices for interview materials). Interview participants were also invited to a workshop held on M a y 15 t h, 2007, where they had the opportunity to discuss management practices on the islands as well as the research findings and hypothesis (see Appendix 6 for the M a y workshop report). Interview and workshop findings were then overlaid with the comprehensive legislative review in both jurisdictions. The results of these two research processes were surprising: despite having very different legislative frameworks, the two sets of islands are managing water in very similar ways. This 'parallel management' is made possible by a variety of regulatory loopholes, lack of information, widespread lack of enforcement, local initiatives, and high one-size-fits-all 2 regulatory triggers that are not reflective of the islands' realities. The research found that deviation from regulatory intent was usually a function of biophysical characteristics, local economics, and local culture and values. Since these are held in common between the islands, they created shared management challenges. The central hypothesis of the research is that these local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers o f local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. The thesis is structured as follows. Chapter two provides a survey of the literature and situates the case study research within it. The first part of the literature review relates to the broader theoretical concepts of water governance, scale and enforcement; the latter part of the review focuses on the jurisdictions in question - B . C . and Washington - and on the islands in particular. The literature review sets the stage for the introduction of the case study in chapter three. Chapter three discusses the research methods used and includes a detailed summary o f the research findings. The chapter concludes by highlighting key similarities on islands on either side of the border, and by showing that despite very different regulatory frameworks, the two sets of islands have much in common in terms of on-the-ground management. This finding drives the hypothesis that local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or 3 greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. Finally, chapter four discusses possible implications of this hypothesis. Specifically, the chapter explores three potential implications: (1) Potential implications for the traditional conceptualization of the policy-management relationship and its role in the emerging science-policy discussion; (2) Potential implications relating to the appropriate scale o f water governance; and (3) Potential implications for the role of enforcement. The chapter concludes by offering recommendations for future academic research and governmental action. 4 2. F R A M I N G T H E ISSUES: E V I D E N C E F R O M T H E L I T E R A T U R E This chapter situates the Gul f and San Juan Islands case study within the existing literature. A n examination of the underlying themes of water (and groundwater) governance scales of governance, and enforcement sets the context of the case study and highlights the traditionally understudied themes that emerged from the case study. The following sections address issues of concern on the islands: policy-management connections, demand management, and B . C . / Washington comparisons. Finally, section 2.7 surveys the points most relevant to the case study introduced in chapter three. 2.1 W a t e r ( and g r o u n d w a t e r ) Governance The case study presented in this thesis addresses questions and concepts within a water governance rubric. The United Nations Development Programme defines water governance as "the range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services at different levels of society. It comprises the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which all involved stakeholders, including citizens and interest groups, articulate their priorities, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences" ( U N D P 2007). In other words, water governance describes the institutions and decision-making processes that determine how water is managed at a variety of scales. 5 Good governance is a knotty term with a variety of definitions. For example, U N E S C O defines good governance as having eight characteristics: participation, consensus orientation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, equity, inclusiveness, and following the rule of law" ( O E C D 2001). The Canadian Institute on Governance shares some of these characteristics in their definition of good ( governance, which is premised on the five principles of legitimacy and voice, direction, performance, accountability, and fairness (IOG 2003: 3). Not all of these governance components are within the scope or focus of this thesis; however, two of the above governance components- performance and participation - are themes that underlie much of the discussion in chapter four. Interestingly, water governance on either side of the Canada-US border has been described as a patchwork. One U.S. author writes that "the system consists of a patchwork o f federal and state authorities, resulting in incomplete yet complicated and confusing policies" (Home 1982: 6), while on the Canadian side of the border water legislation is described as "a patchwork of provincial and federal laws, with inconsistencies and gaps in important areas of responsibility and oversight" (Bakker 2007: 7). The case study presented in chapter three serves as a natural laboratory to study groundwater governance within these patchwork frameworks on either side of the border. The governance of groundwater resources is laden with unique challenges, not least among them the physical complexity o f underground aquifers. Perhaps as a result o f this, there appears to be a general consensus in the literature that Canada's groundwater 6 resources are not well understood, properly mapped, and under-researched. Indeed, the 2005 Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources describes Canada's understanding of our groundwater resources "shocking", "unacceptable", "pitiful", and "stunning" (Senate 2005: 4,5,7,7). In a similar vein, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) concludes a 2005 report with the question: "How can we manage water in the absence of knowledge?" (Rivera 2005: 26). One effect o f this lack o f knowledge - or perhaps its cause - is that groundwater is generally less regulated that surface water, or, as one author describes it, "a relatively unregulated and neglected resource" (Nowlan 2007: 55). Perhaps nowhere is this lack of regulation more prominent than in British Columbia, which remains the only jurisdiction in North America not to require groundwater permits, licences, or reporting of volumes abstracted (Nowlan 2005: 48-9) despite the dependence of 22% of the province's population on groundwater (Wei and Al len 2004: 13). This general lack o f groundwater regulation is occurring despite recognition by some scholars that effective planning may require a greater degree of governmental involvement. For example, one author notes that "[groundwater] planning and control by state agencies requires highly centralized decision-making, complicated lines of authority, state-wide consistency, and large overhead costs and response times" (Puci 1994: 984). A t the same time, there is recognition of the importance of local management and networks (e.g. Norman and Melious 2004; Rhodes 1996; Van Steenbergen 2006). A critical question, then, is the most appropriate scale of groundwater governance. 7 2.2 Scales of Governance In addressing the question of which level of government is best suited to deal with groundwater issues in the U S , Denise Fort sums up the challenges as follows: "There is no national consensus on the proper role for each level of government. Further, the alignment of different groups varies in relation to factors such as perceived strictness of the respective legislative and administrative entities. For example, although industries usually prefer state control, this preference can dissolve in instances when federal regulators are viewed as more congenial to industry. Environmental interests generally prefer federal control, but with the important caveat that more stringent state controls not be pre-empted. State bureaucracies generally prefer to retain their own control, and thus they are often aligned with industry in opposing federal control. Conversely, state governments may align with environmentalists where state control is threatened by preemptive federal legislation" (Fort 1991: 2811). In other words, it appears that no single party has a consistent preference for one scale o f governance over another. In fact, there are important arguments to be made for water governance at the national, provincial/state, and local levels. Evidence in support of local water management is widespread. One author suggests that support for top-down governance approaches is naive in its optimism and an "extraordinary exercise in wishful thinking", asking, "Can we really expect the system to work so well without us?" (Brick 2001: 172). The recent marked increase in collaborative watershed management models (Sabatier 2005) indicates that perhaps that the traditional top-down approach is not working, and that a more substantive role for the local is needed. Literature here often asserts that local populations may have layers of contextual knowledge that can add depth and accuracy to experts' studies, thereby leading to 'better' policy (Durant et. al. 2004; Fischer 2000; Puci 1994; Scott 2003). Although these authors are speaking to the US situation, these arguments are also 8 applicable to Canada. Equally abundant are arguments about the benefits of more centralized governance. A s one author writes, "The federal lands are national assets, not local fiefdoms", asserting that "Instead of allowing federal land managers to devolve their authorities onto local citizens' councils, a far better balance wi l l be achieved i f only legislators would legislate, judges would judge, and managers would manage in accordance with law" (2001: 169, 171). Bridging the gap between these two sets of arguments are those who aim to clarify which actors and tools are most appropriate for different situations. For example, Getches writes that collaborative watershed efforts are most effective only i f they have a clear focus and governmental involvement (2001). These conclusions are consistent with a 2004 study of a shared aquifer between B . C . and Washington that found that, on either side of the border, "groups representing smaller regions were more likely to reduce pollution inputs, however, the community-based success was largely contingent on the higher- level political groups to recognize, support, and fund scientific research" (Norman and Melious 2004: 101). Similarly, in speaking to questions about when local collaborative control is most appropriate, Sabatier recommends that "The collective approach to watershed management be used as a method for resolving environmental and socioeconomic problems only when there are high stakes, high social distrust, high governmental distrust, and high knowledge uncertainty. Collaborative approaches are 9 particularly useful for addressing issues that perplex command-and-control institutions, such as nonpoint source pollution and habitat destruction" (Sabatier 2005: 289-90). Kathryn Harrison offers a useful interjection into the debate by introducing political motivation into the equation. Harrison's writing postulates that governments are generally unwilling to pursue environmental action because of the diffuse benefits and concentrated costs of doing so (Harrison 1996). Although here Harrison is referring specifically to federal governments and the general environment, her argument is applicable to governments more generally, and to water specifically. In fact, in a co-authored chapter written ten years later, Harrison elaborates on this hypothesis specifically as it relates to water. Here, she concludes that local governments have the most incentives and disincentives to act (Hi l l and Harrison 2006: 236). Further, the authors note that: "What is perhaps most striking is the limited role of the federal government. The federal government has forgone an opportunity to claim credit for establishing binding national standards, even in the wake of widespread calls for binding national standards post-Walkerton. In contrast, provincial governments have grasped opportunities to claim credit by imposing drinking water standards on local governments, but, in the absence of meaningful monitoring and enforcement, such standards have been largely symbolic" (Hi l l and Harrison 2006: 255). 10 2.3 Enforcement Here, H i l l and Harrison pick up on a critical issue: monitoring and enforcement. This issue is addressed by a number of authors. Among these is Linda Nowlan, who, in analysing groundwater regulation in Canada, contends that although most regulations provide guidelines for consequences o f regulatory non-compliance, they are rarely implemented (2005:51-53). Similarly, David Boyd argues, "On paper, Canada has many seemingly impressive environmental laws. In practice, key elements of these laws are rarely, i f ever, implemented" (Boyd 2003: 237). 1 This claim is supported by robust evidence. For example, according to Ontario Ministry of Environment figures, in 2000 there were 1,900 violations o f water pollution laws by two hundred corporations and municipalities, but only four charges were laid (Boyd 2003: 238). In addition to evidence of lack of enforcement, the literature also explicitly discusses the role of monitoring and enforcement as the linchpin of effective legislation. Here, consensus appears to be that without the effective implementation and enforcement of environmental regulation, policies and legislation are not sufficient to meet their stated mandate (Cohen 1998; Naysnerski 1992). These conclusions are particularly worrisome in light o f the above evidence suggesting that lack of enforcement is widespread. Indeed, Naysnerski's statement that "effective enforcement is the foundation upon which successful environmental policy is built" (Naysnerski 1992: 45) questions the very usefulness of policy whose effectiveness relies on unenforced regulation. The role of 1 1 recognize that implementation and enforcement are not the same; enforcement refers to legal action following an act (or actions) of non-compliance with implemented regulations. However, because this discussion focuses only on policy development and enforcement, I extrapolated from Boyd's statement that if a policy is not implemented it is, by definition, not enforced. 11 enforcement is a critical one on the case study islands, where its absence plays a central role in shaping the relationship between regulation and on-the-ground management. The on-the-ground management of unregulated groundwater resources in B.C. is addressed by Wei and Allen in their book chapter entitled 'Groundwater Management in B.C., Canada: Challenges in a Regulatory Vacuum', where the authors discuss the province's need for non-regulatory tools such as well record inventory, assessments, and monitoring to manage the groundwater resource" (Wei and Al l en 2004:25). 2.4 P o l i c y - M a n a g e m e n t Connec t ions W e i and Allen 's analysis raises a critical issue that is seldom addressed in the literature: the relationship between regulation and on-the-ground management. This relationship is one of the major themes of the case study presented in the next section, and is the basis of the concluding hypothesis of the thesis. A 2002 workshop by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment ( C C M E ) sought to better understand links between groundwater science and practice by bringing together regulators, academics, and scientists in a two-day workshop. A list of themes emerging from the workshop included such topics as improving communications between government decision-makers and academia, recommendations for expert panels for quick decision-making, and the need for policy to keep pace with evolving science. The most interesting of these, however, was perhaps the statement that policy and program research 12 needs should be better articulated, because "the groundwater research community is essentially unaware of what research [regulatory] decision-makers need" ( C C M E 2002: viii). This same workshop series is addressed in the academic literature by Schaefer and Bielak, who write that the workshop series was successful and that it is consistent with the "growing consensus that to ensure science better informs the decision-making process, researchers and policy / program managers need to understand and respect each other's way of working, culture, and operational timelines" (2006: 439-440). 2 The workshop was largely focused on science-policy linkages and there was no visible addressing of the policy-management linkage, perhaps because it was assumed to naturally follow. Science-policy linkages are also addressed in the broader literature outside of the Canadian context (e.g. Jasanoff 2004). Steel et. al.'s work assesses the attitudes of various experts (scientists, program managers, interest group representatives, and the attentive public) towards the appropriate level of involvement for scientists in policy-making. Among other,things, the study shows that participants strongly agreed that "Scientists should work closely with managers and others to integrate scientific results in management decisions", but disagreed strongly with taking the statement-"Scientists should be responsible for making decisions about natural resource management" (Steel et. al. 2004: 7). 4 In the Schaefer and Bielak paper, 'program manager' means 'policy program director' and not local water managers. 3 In the Steel et. al. paper, manager means "managers of state and federal agencies" (2004: 5), not local manager. 4 Interestingly, scientists were most strongly opposed to this second statement. 13 The central point here is that the connections between science and policy are addressed in the literature and offer helpful insights into how the relationship could - or should -evolve. However, this literature seems to assume that once a scientifically sound policy is in place, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement w i l l naturally follow. A s subsequent sections of this thesis wi l l demonstrate, this assumption may be incorrect. At this juncture, an inconsistency in the literature is apparent. Although the enforcement literature cites rampant noncompliance, the science-policy literature is predicated on the assumption that on-the-ground management is consistent with policy and legislation. This is a critical theme, and one that is revisited throughout the thesis. 2.5 M a n a g i n g the D e m a n d , N o t the S u p p l y A s w i l l be introduced later in the case study, pressures on water resources come both from supply (i.e., rainfall, storage) and demand (i.e., water use and residency timing). Traditional responses to these pressures have been to increase water supply through increased storage and delivery. However, a relatively recent addition to the literature field is that of demand side management, an approach suggesting that pressure on water resources can (and should) be alleviated by a reduction in demand. This approach is supported in the literature as early as 1992 by authors such as Sandra Postel in Last Oasis where she suggests that "Measures to conserve water and use it more efficiently are now the most economical and environmentally sound water supply options available to much of the world" and that these constitute our "last oasis" (Postel 1992: 24). This approach 14 is also gaining popularity in Canada (e.g., Campbell 2004; Matthews et. al. 2007) and "accepts that water resources are finite and includes at least some recognition of the limited resilience associated with biophysical systems" (Matthews et. al. 2007: 346-7). Taking this one step further is the soft path approach. Here, water is seen as a means to an end, and the approach questions the need for water use in a number of sectors (e.g. Brandes and Brooks 2005; Brandes et. al. 2006). These demand side management options are an integral part of the recommendations included in chapter four. 2.6 Examining B.C., Washington, and the Case Study Islands Literature comparing water governance between B . C . and Washington is strikingly absent. Some analogous research has been done in the forestry sector, most notably by George Hoberg (2000) in his book chapter entitled 'How the Way We Make Policy Governs the Policy We Make ' . Here, Hoberg sets out to compare forestry policy on either side of the B . C . - U S border of the pacific coast. He concludes that forestry policy is made in profoundly different ways in Canada and the United States, that old-growth protection policies reflect these differences, and that the U S has protected comparatively more old-growth area than B . C . (2000: 48). This conclusion has some important parallels to the findings of this research; most notably that policy is profoundly different on either side of the border. Hoberg suggests that this is a result of different policy histories; that the United States' early revolutions and fight for independence and Canada's roots in British Law continue to shape the way policy is made today. Although Hoberg's writing 15 speaks to the forestry sector, his findings are analogous to some of the writing with respect to B . C . For example, two B . C . authors describe the situation as follows: "British Columbia is unique in that it lags behind other jurisdictions (other provinces and states) in North America in having comprehensive groundwater legislation. This has been due, historically, to a general lack of knowledge and understanding of this valuable resource, and a lack of political wi l l . This lack of comprehensive groundwater legislation severely constrains the province, local governments, and the public from effectively dealing with both conflicts among water users and the degradation of water quality." (Wei and Al len 2004: 7) Wei and Al lan go on to suggest that "Perhaps the most heavily used [of B .C. ' s aquifers] are the aquifers within the Nanaimo Group rocks (Cretaceous age) underlying the G u l f Islands and East Coast of Vancouver Island. In following with the tremendous population growth experienced in the Fraser Lowland (east of Vancouver), these relatively small islands have also experienced a major boom" (Wei and Al len 2004: 13). This heavy use in combination with bedrock and glacial deposit geology make the islands particularly vulnerable to saltwater intrusion - an issue that has been addressed in a number of island specific studies (e.g. Al len 2001, U S G S 2000). There is little written about the issues of regulation and water governance on the islands. However, in a 2006 study of water governance on Bowen Island, one author identifies four categories of barriers to effective water governance on Bowen Island: Governance barriers (fractured management, reliance on volunteers, lack of municipal leadership), financial barriers (lack of transparency), attitudinal barriers (water as a proxy for development, resistance to water conservation initiatives), and science barriers (lack of knowledge about supply capacity) (Henderson 2006: 56). Here, Henderson has identified non-regulatory barriers to effective water governance on Bowen Island (one of the gulf 16 islands that was not part of the thesis case study). These governance, financial, attitudinal and science barriers identified by Henderson are similar to those identified in this case study, where they are not only governance barriers, but actively drive a wedge between regulations and on-the-ground management. These challenges of governance, scale, enforcement and policy-management connections are brought to life on the Gul f and San Juan Islands, where they are compounded by other local factors such as population timing (high population in summer, low population in winter), vulnerability to saltwater intrusion, and distribution networks of small systems and individual wells - many of which are unregistered. 2.7 Summary of the Relevant Literature This survey of the literature highlights several key points relating to the case study presented in the following section. First, it has described water governance in the U S and Canada as a 'patchwork', suggesting that fragmentation between and within responsible governmental agencies is prevalent; this point is central to the case study. A second important point is that is that groundwater is typically less studied and less regulated that surface water; this vacuum sets the stage for many of the findings presented in the following chapter. Important questions were also raised about the appropriate scale(s) of water governance, and this re-emerges in discussion on the implications of the research findings. A fourth and critical point is that the literature suggests that once policies are enacted, compliant management practices w i l l naturally follow. Based on the literature, .17 one would expect to find that regulation has a significant impact on on-the-ground management of groundwater resources. This would mean that groundwater governance on the G u l f and San Juan Islands would vary from one side of the border to the other. The research findings, however, show that this is not the case and suggest other drivers of on-the-ground behaviour. These other drivers are presented in the case study in chapter three. 18 3. THE CASE STUDY The case study presented here examines two sets of physically, economically, and culturally similar islands subject to different legislative frameworks. This presents a unique opportunity to better understand the relationship between groundwater regulation and its on-the-ground management. The case study itself is empirical, offering insight into the unique situation of the islands, prescriptive in its highlighting of specific problems and offering of solutions, and analytical in its contribution to the literature on effective environmental governance and the role of regulations. This chapter details the case study that was undertaken in order to answer the research question, and is divided into three sections. Section 3.1.provides context by exploring some of the literature on case studies as a research method and explaining why this method was chosen for this case study. This section also details the existing climatic, geographical, demographic and economic factors present on the islands. A s wi l l be shown in this section, these factors exert multiple pressures on a scarce resource. The following two sections each explain one of the research methods used and the research findings generated from its respective method. Section 3.2 details the legislative review that was conducted, and section 3.3 explains the interviews and workshop and the resulting findings. Next, section 3.4 highlights key conclusions resulting from the combination o f findings from each research method. Finally, section 3.5 synthesises the concluding findings and explains the rationale for the thesis hypothesis - that local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal 19 governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack o f enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. Potential implications of this hypothesis are discussed in chapter four. Figure 1, below, shows the location of each of the islands. 20 FIGURE 1: M A P OF C A S E S T U D Y ISLANDS 21 3.1 The Case Study: Multiple Pressures on an Critical and Uncertain Resource This section sets the case study context, first by exploring case studies as a research method and then by outlining the specific climatic, geographic, demographic, and economic backdrop against which the case study is set. 3.1.1 Exploring Case Studies Different types of research questions require different research methods. 'Who ' , 'what' and 'where' questions are well suited to a variety of exploratory methods, while 'how' and 'why' questions are well-suited to case study research (Yin , 2002). The subject under investigation can also determine research methods - for research topics involving the 'dead' past, investigators often rely on documents and artefacts as sources of evidence. However, when the subject of investigation is contemporary, direct observation and interviews may be additional sources of evidence to add a contemporary dimension to the research. A s Y i n succinctly puts it, a case study is appropriate when "a 'how' or 'why' question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control" (Yin 2002: 9). This statement accurately describes the question under investigation. Case studies are also useful for generating and testing hypotheses, but are not limited to these activities alone (Flyvbjerg 2006). In this case, a new hypothesis was generated: local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than 22 formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. In addition to the analytical elements of the case study, empirical observations are also included with the aim of providing information and recommendations for local water managers on the islands. In short, the case study method was chosen because the subject of investigation was a 'how' question relating to contemporary issues, and is both exploratory and descriptive in nature. It is anticipated that this research wi l l be generalizable to other jurisdictions as well as to other areas within B . C . and Washington. The concept of generalizability is addressed in the theoretical literature: Y i n likens case studies to experiments in that i f several case studies support a similar theory, the findings of each case study are more robust ( Y i n 2002), and Flyvbjerg contends that "One can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative to other method." (Flyvbjerg 2006: 228). Generalizability of the hypothesis is discussed in greater detail in section 4.1 of the thesis. Research was conducted on six islands; three in British Columbia and three in Washington. The six islands were Orcas, Lopez, and San Juan in Washington, and North and South Pender, Salt Spring, and Gabriola in British Columbia. Selecting islands with similar geology, climate, size and population, minimized external influencing factors and 23 offered a chance to study the impact of regulation in near-isolation from variables that often complicate such comparative studies. The case study in question was chosen for two reasons. One reason for this specific case study is that there is very little literature on the relationship between legislation and on-the-ground management of water resources, and this unique confluence of factors offers an opportunity to study this relationship in a controlled environment. Second, as mentioned in chapter 1, the islands in question are experiencing increasingly frequent water shortages, an increase in the prevalence of saltwater intrusion and pressures from increasing real estate values and increased development. A t the same time, island residents are starting to question and re-evaluate the governance mechanisms that form the framework of existing water governance systems. This makes the research both timely and relevant, and w i l l hopefully increase its usefulness for local managers. The following sections detail the physical characteristics of the groundwater resources themselves as well as demographic and economic pressures exerted on it to show that multiple pressure are exerted the islands' groundwater resources. 3.1.2 Climatic Pressures: The Role of Local Biophysical Characteristics The most important climatic factor with respect to groundwater resources on the islands in the Strait o f Georgia is rainfall, since aquifers are recharged by rainwater alone. The islands are located in a rain shadow, receiving most of their precipitation between 24 October and Apr i l . In the summer months of May through September, the islands receive only a small amount of precipitation and a considerable amount of sunshine. Annual precipitation ranges from 97.62cm/year (38.43 in) on Salt Spring to 61.0 cm/year (24.01 in) on Lopez - the driest of the islands. Aquifer recharge also depends not only on rainfall, but also on aquifer type. Most of the study islands are predominantly composed of fractured bedrock. The exception to this is Lopez, which has a considerable amount of glacial deposit. Fractured bedrock aquifers are characterized by a series of irregular fracture networks at different depths underground such that not all island residents are tapping into a single fissure. This spatial variability means that groundwater quality and availability can vary greatly over relatively short distances. 25 T A B L E / , below, gives a more complete picture of population and rainfall data for the case study islands. Where information was unavailable, the table was left blank. It is important to note that while average rainfall is represented here, over 80% of precipitation occurs in the winter months; summers are relatively dry on all the islands, with Lopez being the driest. 26 T A B L E 1: ISLAND RAINFALL A N D AQUIFER T Y P E Year-round Population Average Rainfall Aquifer Type(s) Orcas 4,500 737mm/year (29 in) Mostly fractured bedrock Lopez 2,179 426-635mm/year (16.77 in-24.6in) Mostly glacial deposit, other San Juan 6,491 Mostly fractured bedrock North and South Pender 2,000 829 mm/year (32.6 in) Mostly fractured bedrock, some shale Salt Spring 8,000 976mm/year (38.4 in) Some fractured bedrock, some glacial deposits, other Gabriola 4,000 924mm/year (36.4 in) Some fractured bedrock, some sandstone, other Winters are mild, with average temperatures of 3.8°C (38.9° F). Summers are moderate with daytime summer temperatures averaging at 22°C (71.6°F) (Environment Canada Website). 5 3.1.3 Demographic Pressures: Population, Residency Timing, and Employment There are three concrete ways in which island demographics impact on groundwater resources: population, residency timing, and employment. The first of these factors is population, i.e. the number of permanent residents l iving on each island. The islands studied ranged in population from two thousand residents on North and South Pender, to eight thousand full-time residents on Salt Spring Island. 5 These are the averages for Victoria, B.C. - the closest long-term government weather station. See http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca Island populations have increased significantly in the past three decades. For example, between 1970 and 1980, the population of San Juan County increased by 103% (SJC Parks 2004). Population continued to climb steadily, and by 2000 the County's population had reached a total of 14,077; this number is expected to increase to 20,442 by 2015 (SJC Parks 2004). Similarly, population has increased dramatically on the Canadian Gul f Islands. Annual population increases between 1996 and 20001 ranged from 3% on South Pender to 11% on Gabriola. One of the unstudied Gul f Islands, Gambier, underwent a 20% increase in population between 1996 and 2001 (Newton: 2). A second way in which population impacts on water resources is the timing of their residency. Island population increases dramatically in the summer months. For example, 60.1% of the property owners on Gabriola Island list their Gabriola property as their primary residence; this is true for 69.4% of properties on Salt Spring, and 49.2% on North Pender. The lowest proportion of year-round residents on any Gul f Island is Hornby, at 38.5% year -round occupancy (Gulf Islands Trust 2005). The remaining properties are used only in the summer. Despite this dramatic increase in summer resident population, it is only part of the summer demand equation. Although there is little data on the number of short-term summer visitors to the islands each month, local estimates indicate that the population . can increase by as much as 400% in the summer months. This population swell o f summer residents and tourists coincides with the driest season on the islands. 28 Employment patterns on the islands are the third demographic factor exerting pressure on the islands' groundwater resources. According to a 2001 Islands Trust report, the top two occupations on the islands are the construction and retail trades, which collectively account for 46% of employment on the B . C . Islands. Employment data for the B . C . islands is shown in Figure 2, below. FIGURE 2: E M P L O Y M E N T ON THE G U L F ISLANDS professional, science and tech services r e t a j l trade services 9% The situation is similar in San Juan County, with an additional factor - a growing retiree population - identified by a 2004 San Juan County document, which noted that "Two 6 Data for this figure was taken from Newton, A. A Statistical Summary of Gulf Islands Profiles, available online at http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca 29 populations drive the local economy - tourists and retirees" and that "Each year the demand for tourist facilities increases", citing construction as one of the "main components of the economic activity of San Juan County" (SJC Parks 2004: 21). The implications of these keystone occupations (tourism and construction) are twofold. First, the tourism industry in particular can be highly water consumptive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that visitors to island bed and breakfasts consume more water than island inhabitants; golf courses are also large water consumers. Most tourism occurs in the dry summer months, thereby increasing the islands' population and water demand at the driest time of year. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the economic weight of the construction industry on the islands further polarizes the ongoing development debate. This development debate focuses on the desire of many island residents to slow the rate of development on the islands to preserve its rural character. The economic power of the development industry brings these conflicting views into even greater relief and gives disproportionate importance to what many participants referred to as the anti-development 'water card'. This issue is discussed in greater detail in section 3.3 of this chapter. 3.1.4 Water under Pressure: The Combined Effects of Climate and Demographics The combined effect of these climatic and demographic factors is that there are multiple pressures on a critical and uncertain resource. Figure 3 below shows island rainfall and 30 population patterns over the course of a year. Although this graph is specific to Hornby Island (not included in this study), it is characteristic of rainfall and population trends throughout the Gu l f and San Juan area. FIGURE 3: M O N T H L Y RAINFALL AND ISLAND POPULATION, HORNBY ISLAND Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month Adapted from www.hornbvisle.ca/water.htm. with permission Similarly, Figure 4, below, shows data from a provincial monitoring well on Galiano Island between 1980 and 2005. The graph shows water levels from a provincial monitoring well on the island. Each year has two data points: one in winter and one in summer. The graph is measured in 'metres below ground surface' ( M B G S ) , and shows that the aquifer is recharging to the same level every year but that each summer the water 31 table is decreasing, presumably due to increased withdrawals. This suggests that aquifers are completely recharging in the winter months but are experiencing increased drawdown in the summer months. While this graph is for Galiano Island (not included in this study), it is likely that this trend holds true for the three islands under investigation and may explain the anecdotal data suggesting that summer water shortages are increasing. FIGURE 4: GALIANO ISLAND OBSERVATION WELL RECHARGE DATA 2 | ! 1 O ( N ' > 3 - v © 0 0 O ( N ' ^ - v 0 0 0 O < N T j - V 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N C T S O N O N O N O O O O Year Adapted from B.C. Ministry of Environment, with permission 32 3.2 Legislative Review The legislative review included an examination of over two dozen water-related policies, acts, and regulations at three levels: local (San Juan County and the Gu l f Islands Trust), provincial/state (B.C. and Washington), and federal (Canada and the United States). In addition to providing the legal backdrop for fieldwork and acting as a critical component of the research analysis, the legislative review underscores the specificity of the research; had the case study been a comparison between different Canadian and U S jurisdictions, the findings may be different. Thus, the case study's generalizability depends in part on the existing groundwater regulations in each jurisdiction. The purpose o f the tables below is to provide an overview o f the most relevant pieces o f legislation with respect to groundwater in the two jurisdictions involved in the case study, 33 T A B L E 2: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON Jurisdiction Legislation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management State (Department of Ecology) Washington Water Code (1917) Prior appropriation wi l l be applied. Waters are common property and are available for private use, but not private ownership. A Water Right is required for surface water use. State (Department o f Ecology) Groundwater Code (1945) Permit required for any wells withdrawing 5,000 gal/day (~ 18,9271/day) for stockwatering purposes, single or group domestic purposes, industrial purposes, or watering a lawn or non-commercial garden that is a half-acre or less in size 7. State (Department o f Ecology) Water Well Construction Act (1971) Mandates the licensing o f well contractors and regulates well design. State (1990 -currently under revision) Growth Management Act (1990) The 1990 Washington Growth Management Act mandates that local jurisdictions adopt ordinances that classify, designate, and regulate land use in order to protect critical areas. Critical areas include aquifer recharge areas.8 The act also allows local government to direct growth to less sensitive areas. In order to receive a building permit, Rule 19.27.097 states that applicants must demonstrate that there is adequate potable water supply 9. Federal (US Environmental Protection Agency) Safe Drinking Water Act (last amended 1996) Sets national standards for drinking water quality. Responsibility for implementation delegated to states and tribes, with the exception of Wyoming and Washington, D . C . Federal (US Environmental Protection Agency) Clean Water Act (last amended 2002) Authorizes U S E P A to make grants to state authorities to develop groundwater protection strategies10 County (San Juan County Health) Rules and Regulations of the San Juan San Juan County is responsible for monitoring the water quality of 'Group B ' water systems (systems with two to fourteen connections); the 7 Department of Ecology Water Regulations Website: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/98152/ Department of Ecology Critical Aquifer Recharge Area page: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/cara/index.html 9 Revised Code of Washington, Rule 19.27.097 1 0 US EPA Citizens' Guide to Groundwater Protection: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/citguid.pdf 34 Jurisdiction Legislation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management County Board of Health Regarding Water Wells and Water Systems state is responsible for 'Group A ' water systems (systems with fifteen or more connections). 35 T A B L E 3: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Jurisdiction Legislation/ Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management Provincial (Ministry of Environment) The Water Act (1909) Deals with the specifics of well construction and enables the 2004 Ground Water Protection Regulation. Sections 62-67 of the act, introduced in 2001, sets the parameters around which water management plans can be formulated. Section 78 of the Act, introduced in November 2004, states that " A person must not operate a well in a manner that causes or is likely to cause the intrusion of saltwater or contaminated water into an aquifer from which that well draws ground water, or any well that draws ground water from that aquifer."11 Provincial (Ministry of Transportation) Local Services Act (1957), Subdivision Regulations (1970) This regulation applies to subdivision in any area in the Province that is not a municipality. Sections 4.09-4.11 (added in 1970) state that Subdivision approvals that include a community water supply are issued only to proposals indicating that there is an "adequate supply of potable water" at the proposed building site. According to the Ministry's website, "If there is no subdivision bylaw regulating proof of water supply, the Approving Officer may require proof of 2500 litres per day per dwelling unit, as well as a statement from a laboratory regarding the water's quality." 1 2 , 1 3 Water may be supplied from individual surface sources, individual wells on site, a new water system, or from the extension of an existing water system. 1 4 Provincial B.C. Water Utility Section 5, added in 1989, requires application 1 1 B.C. Water Act (1996), s. 78 (2) 1 2 B.C. Ministry of Transportation (2006). 1 3 It should also be noted that B.C. septic systems that used to be regulated by the Province are now installed by private, licensed septic system installers. Septic system installation now falls under Health act and the ministry of health now holds this responsibility. 1 4 B.C. Ministry of Transportation (2006) 36 Jurisdiction Legislation/ Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management (Ministry of Environment) Act (1973) for a 'certificate of public convenience and necessity' for wells that will be used in such a way as to qualify them as a Water Utility.15 Provincial (Ministry of Community Services) Local Government Act (1979), Islands Trust Act (1990) Section 903, added in 1985, gives local governments - including the Islands Trust -jurisdiction over zoning and land use planning.16 The act also allows the Islands Trust to oversee the formulation of Official Community Plans for each of the islands. Provincial (Ministry of Health) Drinking Water Protection Act (2001) Specifies that drinking water sources, including aquifers, are to be protected. Water supply systems must provide potable water. A 'Water supply system' is a domestic system serving more than one single-family residence. Potable water is water that meets the standards set out in the Regulations associated with the act. Potable water standards are defined in this act. There are three contaminants to be monitored for: Fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and total coliform bacteria. 1 7 Under the Act, the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) issues construction permits for "water treatment plants, reservoirs, disinfection systems and water transmission and distribution systems"18. The VIHA construction permit requirements stipulate that water transmission and disinfection systems must provide 225L/person/day, and water quality must meet 1 5 B.C. Water Utility Act, (1973), s. 5. Prior to enactment of the Act in 1973, water utilities were regulated under the B.C. Public Utilities Act, which was last consolidated in 1960. As of 1973, the Public Utilities Act was repealed in 1973 and replaced with separate acts for each of the utilities. 1 6 B.C. Local Government Act (1979), s. 903. When this section was added in 1985, it was added as section 963, but was renumbered between 1985 and 1996. This section was last amended in 2000. 1 7 B.C. Drinking Water Protection Act (2001), s. 1. Standards here are tied to Standards set out in the B.C. Health Act. 1 8 Vancouver Island Health Authority website: http://www.viha.ca/mho/environment/water_qualitv/drinking_water.htm 1 9 Vancouver Island Health Authority "Guidelines for the Approval of Water Supply Systems" 37 Jurisdiction Legislation/ Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management the V I H A standards that fall between the B . C . drinking water standards under the B . C . drinking water protection regulation and the Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 1 9 Provincial (Ministry of Environment) Environmental Assessment Act (1994), Reviewable Projects Regulation (2002) Projects proposing to extract groundwater at a rate equal to or greater than 75 litres per second are subject to an environmental impact assessment.20 Regional (Gulf Islands Trust) Islands Trust Council Policy Statement Amendment Bylaw No. 87 (2002) States that "It is Trust Council 's policy that islands in the Trust Area should be self- . sufficient in regard to their supply of freshwater." Provincial (Ministry of Environment) Ground Water Protection Regulation (2004) Deals with the registration of well drillers, specifies specific well construction and sealing provisions, well identification, and protects groundwater through proper closing of wells no longer in use. Provincial (Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing, Office of Housing and Construction Standards) B . C . Building Code (last updated 2006) Section 9.31.3 of the code states that "every dwelling unit shall be supplied with potable water", where potable water is defined in the Drinking Water Protection Act and the Health Act: There are three contaminants to be monitored for: Fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and total coliform bacteria. The above tables show that B . C . and Washington have very different legislative frameworks with respect to groundwater. These are summarized in Table 4, below. B . C . Reviewable Projects Regulation (2002), s. 11 (4) 38 T A B L E 4: DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS FOR SIMILAR ISSUES Issue Washington British Columbia Groundwater licensing Licenses required for withdrawals of more than 5,000 US Gallons / day or for wells with two or more connections. No licensing of private, domestic, low-withdrawal wells. N o licensing on private wells Drinking water Standards set by the U S E P A Different standards in place: Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, B . C . standards set in the Drinking Water Protection Act , and Local standards Growth and Development Enables Counties to adopt ordinances to protect critical aquifer recharge areas. Each island has its own Official Community Plan (OCP) which is revisited every five years. Planning Level San Juan County Island-by-Island planning bylaws Based on a review of the literature and the legislation presented here, one would expect that different legislative frameworks would lead to different on-the-ground management practices. A s the following sections wil l show, this was not true for the case study area; on-the-ground management practices were in fact quite similar. 3.3 Interviews and Workshop This section deals with the second research method used: interviews. The first part of this section explores their applicability through the qualitative methods literature as well as their specific application to the case study in question. This section also includes findings from a workshop held on M a y 15 t h 2007 that included many o f the interview participants. 39 The research was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board, which requires that the confidentiality of the respondents be safeguarded. A s a result, analysis is not island specific and there is no detailed information provided on the respondents. A l l participant quotes in the text are anonymous. Copies of the initial contact letter and participants' consent forms are included in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively. 3.3.1 Interview Methods: Theory and Application Interviews were chosen because they are essential sources of information relevant to this case study (Yin 2002), and because they "bridge a gap in knowledge that other methods...are unable to bridge efficaciously" (Dunn 2000: 80). Interviews were also chosen as a research method because there does not appear not appear to be a significant body of literature investigating the 'on-the-ground' practices of groundwater management in the case study area. A s a result, all information with respect to 'on-the-ground' groundwater management necessarily came from interviews. Interviewees were not randomly selected; participant selection was purposive in order to ensure the inclusion of a broad range of expertise. Interviews were focused rather than open-ended and lasted approximately one hour each. Interviews were conversational in nature, but were guided by a predetermined set of questions. A l l participants fell into one o f four categories: B . C . expert, B . C . agriculture and tourism, Washington expert, or Washington agriculture and tourism. Participants in each category were asked the same 40 questions. A l l four questionnaires were similar, with questions about the relevant legislation varying across jurisdictions. Questions were focused on existing regulations and their impacts, as well as the participants' experiences working within the regulatory system. A sample questionnaire is included in Appendix 3, and an anonymous participant list is included in Appendix 4. Interviews were transcribed based on anonymous participant codes. These codes are included in the brackets following each quotation, allowing the reading to identify multiple quotes from a single participant while keeping the participants' identity anonymous. Forty interviews were conducted during the June 2006 field season. Participants were chosen based on their relevant expertise on the islands. Selection was based on snowball sampling, a technique whereby a number o f experts are identified and they suggest other relevant experts. Typically, a sample collected through snowballing is considered complete when participants repeat the same names and no new names are suggested. This saturation did occur on the islands, suggesting that most relevant experts were interviewed. Research participants included members of local government, land use and regional planning experts, public health officials, well drillers, and members of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), agricultural, and business communities. Forty interviews were conducted between M a y 31 s t and June 29 t h of 2006; nineteen in Washington and twenty-one in British Columbia. A n anonymous list o f participants is included in Appendix 4. 41 Limitations to fieldwork research included the inability to interview all experts due to scheduling conflicts and the disproportionate representation of government officials due to their specific expertise. Further, follow up interviews were planned for the summer o f 2007, but were not conducted due to time constraints. However, because the purpose of the research was hypothesis generation (and not hypothesis testing), the participant sample was adequate to meet the purposes of the research. The third and final research method was a workshop held M a y 15 t h , 2007 at the University o f British Columbia. The purposes of the workshop were threefold: To create an opportunity for groundwater regulators and managers from either side of the border to network and to engage in discussion about groundwater governance; to give participants insight into the realities of groundwater governance on the islands; and to contribute to the development of the research hypothesis discussed in this thesis. Twenty-eight participants, seven of whom had participated in interviews in June 2006, attended the workshop. The workshop was divided into two general themes: community and land use planning, and drinking water protection. Each theme had a speakers' panel followed by small group discussion. Although the workshop was a useful networking and information-sharing event for all participants, it did not address the hypothesis as anticipated. Interestingly, participants seemed reluctant to discuss the concluding that hypothesis local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable 42 regulations. When presented with the hypothesis, participants expressed interest but did not either support or reject the hypothesis. A n exception to this was one of the small breakout groups in the morning theme of 'Community and Land Use Planning', which did agree with the hypothesis that factors other than regulation impact on-the-ground management. However, this was the only time the research hypothesis was discussed. One possible reason for this surprising outcome is that participants simply did not know how to respond; regulators are not aware of compliance rates for the regulations they oversee, and local managers are not aware of the widespread non-compliance throughout the islands. A future workshop of this kind would benefit from allocating specific discussion time for the research hypothesis. A copy of the workshop report is included in Appendix 6. The research findings presented in the following sections reflect the interviews as well the participant workshop. A l l research methods were undertaken with a view to hypothesis generation rather than hypothesis testing. A n y future work to test the research hypothesis presented in this thesis would benefit from follow-up interviews and surveys with research participants as well as from surveys with the year round non-expert population of the islands. 3.3.2 Shared Management Challenges There were a number of management challenges that were held in common on either side of the border. These shared challenges were identified throughout the interviews, and 43 were confirmed during the M a y 15 t h workshop. These shared management challenges stem from a combination of biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community values combined with existing regulatory frameworks. These challenges are discussed here. i) Fragmentation between quality and quantity: Participants in both jurisdictions cited the problem of fragmented management responsibility between water quantity and quality. In both jurisdictions, the environmental branch of the provincial/state government (the Department of Ecology in Washington and the Ministry of the Environment in British Columbia) was responsible for water quantity and the health branch of the government (the Department of Health in Washington and the Ministry of Health in B.C. ) was responsible for drinking water quality. There is some overlap in departmental responsibility within jurisdictions; for example, the B . C . Ministry of Environment holds some responsibility for source protection, which relates to drinking water and is consequently under the purview o f the Ministry of Health. Perhaps the most striking example o f this jurisdictional fragmentation on the islands is the case of saltwater intrusion, where widespread over-pumping or occasionally very deep drilling can result in invasion of saline water into a well and often into the 9 i surrounding wells sharing the same aquifer or rock fissure. In B . C . there is no legislated extraction limit, yet saltwater intrusion was frequently cited as the most 2 1 It is widely accepted that over pumping aquifers can lead to saltwater intrusion, especially where this pumping is close to the shoreline. See, for example, Reinder et. al. (1994), "Salt-Water Intrusion into Groundwater Systems" in U . Zoller (ed.), Groundwater Contamination and Control. 44 pressing water quality issue on a given island. 2 2 In Washington, where there is a groundwater license exemption limit o f five thousand U S gallons per day, there was concern that this figure was too high and was not sufficient to protect against saltwater intrusion. Here, the quality of the water is significantly affected by the quantity of water being extracted, yet quality and quantity continue to be governed separately in both jurisdictions. The implications of this phenomenon are significant: groundwater quality and quantity are two elements of the same resource, and fragmented jurisdictional responsibilities create an artificial separation between the two, with potentially serious implications for water quality. ii) Lack of scientific information: Participants on both sides o f the border identified a lack o f scientific information about recharge rates, aquifer fracture networks, and water quality as a management challenge. In B . C . , participants perceived that the reason for licensing discrepancies between ground and surface water was due to a lack of information about available water quantities, and that therefore issuing licenses for fixed amounts would be impossible. Compounding this is the history of groundwater legislation in B . C . Since there has never been groundwater licensing, the resource has not traditionally been subject to legislation. Groundwater licenses are required in Washington, but private wells extracting less than 5,000 U.S . gallons per day are exempt. In B .C., no permit for groundwater pumping is required. The exception is for wells pumping at a rate of more than 75L/second; in this case an environmental assessment is required under the Reviewable Projects Regulation (2002), s. 11 (4). 45 iii) Lack of enforcement of existing regulations: Participants in both jurisdictions cited lack of enforcement as one of their primary concerns. For example, it is difficult to enforce the extraction exemption limit of 5,000 U S gallons per day because there is no requirement for universal metering. In B . C . , regulations cited by participants as unenforced included the regular testing of water from water purveyors and the sealing of older decommissioned wells. Participants also discussed what they saw as a trend of lack of enforcement on the islands. As two different participants noted, "There are millions of regulations out there, but half of the people who used to enforce them are gone; all the ministries have been gutted. Y o u know, regulation gets to be kind o f a joke after a while i f there's nobody there. So it comes down to the old thing about political w i l l , and that doesn't get generated unless you have something like the classic case of a Walkerton." (Participant 32) 2 3 "Right now, in the G u l f Islands, [groundwater] falls between all the cracks; no one's really regulating it." (Participant 19) iv) Contention over island development: Islands in both jurisdictions were experiencing rapid development, exponential increases in property values (often to the extent that 'o ld timers' were being forced off the islands and were commuting daily from the mainland), and an increase in tourism. Many participants perceived water as the limiting factor in development. Some examples of participants' opinions with respect to the development debate are included below. " This comment is a direct reference to restructuring of the Ontario Government's Ministry of Environment in the 1990s. An excellent summary of the state of the Ontario Ministry of Environment can be found in Anita Krajnc's article entitled Wither Ontario's Environment? Neo-Conservatism and the Decline of the Environment Ministry. However, it is difficult to determine which provincial governmental funding programs have been cut in B.C., in large part because there is no single B.C. group charged with environmental reporting. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario fills this role in Ontario; there is no equivalent in B.C. 46 "I can't honestly say that there aren't some of us who would like to see water as a restricting and limiting factor on development. Personally, that's just fine with me, and it's just fine with a lot of people, too." (Participant 14) " A lot of people are trying to use the water card, i f you w i l l , to inhibit growth or keep growth at bay." (Participant 5) "The governor tried to remove that [the 5000 gal extraction limit] so everyone who would drill would need a water right. But then there would be no homes built, no roads built, nothing. Y o u can imagine what that would do to the economy." (Participant 27) "I am sure that the homebuilders association wi l l take [changes to the 5000 gallon extraction exemption] all the way to the Supreme Court, they're very aggressive about protecting development interests." (Participant 34) "I 'm always suspicious of developers and their motives that might have a connection to water use because that's of course of the big limiting factors." (Participant 3) One participant gave a succinct summary of the issue of the 'water card' in a discussion of case o f potential development: "Every time there's a new application for development, it 's ' is this going to affect the groundwater, you shouldn't approve it because it wi l l affect groundwater and they don't have enough groundwater to prove [that they have enough water]', when really, they just don't like it. A n d people should just say that - 'we don't want development. We don't want that type of development here.' I mean, that's a perfectly legitimate thing to say. People feel that it wi l l bolster their argument i f they can somehow support it with some quasi-scientific explanation. Or it w i l l make it easier for the decision makers to say no. Or it w i l l delay the proposal by requiring all sorts of reports and hope that it becomes so expensive that the person w i l l just go away. And do they? Sometimes. It does work sometimes." (Participant 18) [Author's note: bold font indicates the interviewer's speech.] This contentious and polarizing discussion generated two interesting sub-themes: 47 a) Resistance to the exploration and development of alternative water sources: Those developing rainwater harvesting systems were occas ional ly perceived as 'the bad guys ' b y those resisting development. Some participants felt that through the development o f alternative sources o f water, the 'water c a r d ' (the last resort tactic o f restricting development) w o u l d be taken away and the islands w o u l d lose their rural character and sense o f c o m m u n i t y . Alternatives are discussed further i n part (iv) o f this section. M a n y loca l residents opposed increased real estate development, and the e c o n o m i c weight o f construction companies exacerbated the issue even further. T h e fact that this issue was raised i n every interview conducted - despite the fact that it was not a quest ion o n the interview schedule - further highlights its importance. b) Complacence with lack of information: M a n y participants c l a i m e d that some residents preferred not to gather informat ion about groundwater resources because the current lack o f informat ion was d r i v i n g the use o f the precautionary pr inc ip le and was s l o w i n g - and i n some cases preventing - development. Participants discussed other reasons for this complacence, most s igni f icant ly the concern that informat ion about water resources - either abundance or shortage - w o u l d negat ively impact them. O n e participant described the issue as fo l lows: "People are a l itt le guarded about the information they want to d ivulge about their water. It's a very personal issue that can affect peoples ' property values, and so a lot o f people don't want to d ivulge that. []Some people fear that i f everyone f o u n d out that they had a good, h igh-volume source o f water, then other people m i g h t be d r i l l i n g w e l l s nearby to try to tap into it, that type o f thing. So i t ' s a very sensit ive issue." (Participant 10) 48 Further, there was some concern that i f information from a well revealed a low volume of water or water of poor quality that the real estate value of the home would decrease. Thus, little information about water quality and quantity on individual properties was available on either side of the border. There are a small number of provincial test wells on the islands, but because the water resource is highly variable over short distances, they were seen as being insufficient indicators of the islands' water resources. v) Concerns about small drinking water supply systems: San Juan County has 305 systems of between two and fifteen connections which use groundwater. 2 4 On Salt Spring Island, 22 of the 32 small drinking water supply systems are groundwater dependent; on North and South Pender 14 of the 18 small drinking supply systems are groundwater dependent; on Gabriola there are at least 24 small drinking water supply systems, all o f which are groundwater dependent.2 5 Small systems on both sides of the border faced many challenges in relation to the existing regulations. These included the challenges of meeting drinking water standards and encouraging water conservation among affluent visitors with no long-term stake in the islands. Small systems on both sides suggested that distributed treatment systems (where water is treated at each user's tap) should be accepted as part o f the treatment system. Participants noted that these were currently not recognised as part of the municipal treatment process. A small client base posed unique challenges to small water systems that struggled to meet high standards on a small budget. Small systems on both sides struggled with finding and 2 4 Personal Communication, July 2007 2 5 Personal Communications, July 2007 49 training personnel; most were staffed by volunteers. One small system in Washington was knowingly violating the Federal standards for trihalomethanes (carcinogenic by-products of chlorination) because it could not afford an alternative treatment system. One small system in B . C . spent more of its budget on its required annual audit than on the system itself. One participant noted that, " Y o u do need government regulations, but in a case like us.. .you need to have some kind of a system where they can isolate the small system from a large system." (Participant 40) vi) Use of alternative water sources: Participants in both jurisdictions discussed water supply alternatives such as rainwater harvesting, desalination, and bulk water hauling. Concerns about the potential environmental and health impacts of water alternatives include uncertainty with respect to the environmental impacts of the disposal of the salty brine remaining after desalination, and the potential for the transfer of biota and other contaminants (e.g. arsenic) through bulk water hauling. These concerns highlight the importance o f addressing the issues of groundwater directly rather than allowing financial capital to 'solve' the problem through the use of alternatives. Although each alternative had its own specific issues, an overarching concern with respect to these alternatives is that they provided a vehicle by which a potential developer could prove adequate potable water in the absence o f sufficient groundwater, thereby increasing the likelihood of accelerated development on the islands. Indeed, as one 50 participant noted, "People are wary of rainwater harvesting because they see it as a way o f leapfrogging restrictions on growth on the island" (Participant 32). Rainwater harvesting was an enormously complex issue. In Washington, a surface license from the Washington State Department of Ecology is needed carry out rainwater harvesting, and in June 2006 there was a significant backlog - up to ten years - for surface water permits. Despite this, San Juan County had been issuing building permits for buildings reliant on rainwater for a number of years. The Department o f Ecology has endorsed the use of rainwater harvesting systems for pilot projects and is currently working to alter the current legislation to better reflect water needs and technologies on the islands. It is anticipated that these new regulations wi l l be implemented in the fall of 2007. This issue was addressed by a Washington participant who described the situation as follows: "The department of ecology hasn't been processing water rights. So there's a huge backlog which created a bunch of anarchy, people just go for it. People are doing rainwater capture even though they need a surface right to do it, which they don't have because they don't want to wade through the backlog. So it's illegal. But people are doing it anyway, and the department of ecology isn't going to do anything about it because they're a reactionary organization." (Participant 5) N o license is needed to carry out rainwater harvesting in B .C . , but building permits were not issued for buildings that use rainwater harvesting as the sole source of water. Rainwater harvesting appeared to be more common on the San Juan Islands than on the G u l f Islands. 51 The main concerns around desalination were expense and environmental impact. Some participants were concerned that the financial costs of desalination were such that only the rich could afford it, thereby exacerbating the growing financial gap on the islands. Environmentally, there is some question as to how sustainable desalination is since the process required a significant amount of energy, and energy on the islands is limited. A final water source alternative was bulk water hauling, whereby trucks filled up with water in one location on an island and sold it to home or business owners i n another location. In some cases, particularly in Washington, water was hauled from island to island or from the mainland to an island. In B . C . it seemed that bulk water hauling was limited to transport within the confines of any given island. Although there were few statistics documenting the pervasiveness of this practice, one Washington town selling water to haulers did document their sales: in 2004 the town sold 799 181 U .S . Gallons of water and in 2005 it sold 889 182 U S Gallons. 2 6 Bulk water hauling is legal in both jurisdictions, although in B . C . it seems that off-island bulk water hauling would go against an Islands Trust Council Policy Statement which states that "It is Trust Council 's policy that islands in the Trust Area should be self-sufficient in regard to their supply of freshwater" (IT policy statement 2002). This is a highly polarized issue in both jurisdictions, where water haulers were generally seen either as saviours o f the community or as the embodiment of unsustainability. Personal communication June 14, 2006. 52 vii) Conflict over water There were a number of red flags with respect to potential upcoming conflict in both jurisdictions. There are cases in Washington that have already gone to court over the issue of prior appropriation rights. The extraordinary practices designed to create productive wells were an issue of concern. One of these practices was hydrofracturing, a process whereby extremely high pressure is created inside the well by forcing water down into it. This practice is designed to open up the cracks in the bedrock and can sometimes create new fractures. However, it can have unanticipated negative consequences on the existing fracture network and neighbouring wells. Further, little was known about the long-term impacts o f artificially altering the underground fractures. Wel l drillers refer to this as a last resort, citing that people do it when they have 'lost hope'. These concerns seem to be greater in B . C . , where the absence of a strong legal framework may encourage more extreme water-finding measures. In 2005-2006 there were two cases where one well owner took another well owner to court for drawing water at a rate that impaired their well - the premise was that this conflicted with the prior appropriation system. In both cases, the well owner who had been using their well for longer won the case. This issue of the superseding rights of pre-existing well owners and associated implications for development was identified by some of the participants, including one who noted that: 53 " Y o u don't have to consider the impact on the neighbouring property. So even though we have a first in time first in right prior appropriation system of water law in Washington, at some level our county code in groundwater doesn't take that into concern because you aren't looking at, are you impairing or are you impacting, or at what level are you impairing or impacting your neighbouring property owners" (Participant 14). The Washington cases were significant because they asserted the superiority o f prior appropriation rights over water rights. These legal decisions may impact upon development in Washington in coming years. viii) Concern about climate change Climate change is an issue somewhat different than those listed above in that unlike the others, it is not unique to the islands. However, it was an issue o f concern to many participants and so is listed here. While little was known with respect to how specific islands w i l l be affected by changing climate, changes may include a shorter rainy season with the same amount o f rainfall - in other words, heavier rain over fewer days. In this scenario, increased storage would be the primary limiting factor for groundwater use. Participants expressed the need for flexibility in any forthcoming water management frameworks to allow for adaptation to changing climatic conditions. ix) Local water initiatives The eight common issues mentioned above present shared management concerns. Although these were in part driving management behaviour, so too were local initiatives. For example, on one island in B . C . , local residents have established a groundwater management organization. This group is encouraging residents to put 'wel l watchers' 54 (data loggers) in their wells so that data can be gathered with respect to local groundwater conditions. On another B . C . island, one small system meters each user and posts the average daily usage of each household using over 40 gallons per day on a bulletin board outside the utility office. Low water use in this small system suggests that this 'peer pressure' is effective in encouraging residents to conserve water. On the Washington side, the San Juan County Watershed Management Committee is a group made up o f local citizens of with a variety of expertise, including two resource specialists and representatives from the Washington State Department of Ecology as well as the County Health Department. The group provides recommendations to the state and has been working with the Department of Ecology to modify some of the existing water rights laws. On both sides of the border, these initiatives were being led by charismatic, involved, and articulate individuals and groups who were spearheading many positive changes with respect to water resource management in their communities. While these initiatives appear to have had significant impact on local groundwater governance, their reliance on a small number of devoted individuals made them vulnerable in the face of changing population and political turnover. This was less so in Washington, where State funding is available to the San Juan County Watershed Management Committee. 55 3.3.3 Salient Differences Although participants in the two jurisdictions shared many concerns, there were also a number of salient differences from one side of the border to the other. i) Pro/Anti Government mindset: One significant area of difference was the contrast between attitudes towards government on each side of the border. Specifically, participants in Washington were more apprehensive of 'big government' than participants in British Columbia. As two Washington Participants noted, "People in rural places in the United States are really suspicious of government regulation" (Participant 33). " A s man [sic] moved west from the East Coast, they kept getting away from regulations. We came from England, and our puritanical forefathers and mothers built laws and people go "oh, no, it's just another England, let's move west", and as we moved west we got wilder and wilder and wilder. A n d we got to the west coast, and some of use jumped off and said 'let's go out to those islands', because, again, we want to get away from regulations" (Participant 6). Many participants in Washington identified this anti-government mindset as a barrier to effective water management. Washington interviewees made frequent reference to the western United States' 'cowboy mentality' and the subsequent feeling that residents have the right to infinite resources. Within this context, N G O s in Washington have a particularly valuable role to play. For example, one Washington N G O noted that by explicitly not associating themselves with any governmental entity, they are able to encourage conservation and groundwater protection among island residents who are harbour strong 'anti-government' sentiments. This organization made a special effort to be dissociated from any level of government, and claimed that that dissociation has made 56 them far more effective than they would be otherwise. As this N G O participant from Washington noted, "Our policy is that i f you can get people to do it voluntarily on their own, that that's a better approach. A n d the reason that that is [our] policy is that there are a lot of people who, as I 'm sure you know, resent government intrusion and they hate regulations, and they hate anybody that has anything to do with regulations. A n d those are precisely the people who we want to be able to work with. A n d i f they see us as entirely outside of that regulatory realm, it makes it easier for us to relate to them - they don't see us as a risk." (Participant 9) Overall, participants in British Columbia were less 'anti-government' and were more supportive of regulation. Many stated that there were not enough groundwater regulations in the province, and everyone involved in water management held that the new regulations had had no impact oh them whatsoever. This non-compliance is elaborated upon in section 3.4. ii) Agricultural issues Members of the agricultural communities on both sides of the border recognized the special needs of agriculture. None of the islands had large-scale agricultural operations, and it was acknowledged that these are quite different from the small, family-run farms that operate on the islands. The following trends are therefore noted with respect to the type of agriculture that was occurring on the islands. On the Washington islands, many small farms were operating illegally by irrigating from ponds to which they have no license for surface water extraction. This was largely due to the years-long backlog for surface water licenses. In these cases, farmers cited their 57 desire for a way in which small agricultural operations could have access to more water without such a lengthy process. One participant expressed the issue as follows: "People also set up ponds and pump out of them. It's totally il legal. . . There are hundreds of people doing that, it's supported by the community, but it's totally illegal" (Participant 5). Conversely, members of the agricultural community in B . C . had no problems with legal access to water. When asked to reflect on their counterparts' situation in Washington, a number of B . C . farmers suggested that perhaps i f B . C . were to license groundwater there could be special provisions for land in the Agricultural Land Reserve. Few B . C . participants were concerned about water as it related to agriculture. Indeed, as one B . C . farmer noted, "We just use what we need and there's always more there" (Participant 22) iii) Drinking water regulations and their impacts: Another difference between the islands in B . C . and the islands in Washington pertained^ to drinking water. In both jurisdictions, water from individual private wells must be inspected at the time of construction but private well owners were not required to test regularly after construction. In Washington, the drinking water standards were set by the U S E P A and apply to all water systems. While this poses a challenge for small systems, as was discussed above, some larger drinking water and distribution systems were in favour of these more stringent regulations because they were able to impose what they felt were appropriate 58 standards without having to absorb the public's frustration at the subsequent rate increases. In Washington, 'Group B ' systems (between two and fifteen connections) are monitored by San Juan County and 'Group A ' systems (fifteen or more connections) are monitored by the Washington State Department of Health. Both 'Group A ' and 'Group B ' systems are subject to the U S E P A drinking water regulations. Private wells (those with only one connection) are not subject to the regulations. In B . C . , the drinking water standards varied from island to island and system to system. The Capital Regional District (CRD) managed some water systems on the B . C . G u l f Islands and required that all their systems meet the 92 maximum allowable concentrations set by the Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. However, these guidelines were only enforceable in locations where they were legally binding: areas under federal jurisdiction (of which there are none on the islands that were studied), and areas where bylaws have been passed specifying that the Canadian Guidelines are the legal standard. One of the islands in the study has set its own standards that lie somewhere between the B . C . standards (which stipulate that the substances to be tested for are total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli) and the Canadian Guidelines. In short there are three different sets of standards in effect on the B . C . islands: The Canadian Guidelines in some areas, the B . C . standards in other areas2 8, and other ad hoc island-by-island standards for other areas. There is a small amount of land under Federal jurisdiction on the Gulf Islands: Parks Canada's 'Gulf Island National Park Reserve' owns small land parcels on sixteen Gulf Islands including North and South Pender Islands. However, the land area is relatively small (a total of 33km2 spread over 16 islands) and has few residents on it. 2 8 The B.C. standards are set in the Drinking Water Protection Act (2001) 5 9 iv) Planning level: Because the Islands Trust governs the islands in B . C . , 2 9 each island had an 'Official Community Plan' that they developed themselves. The lowest level of government in Washington is the County, and many participants expressed their frustration that all of the San Juan Islands were subject to the same regulations, when they had quite different needs. Island-by-island plans appear to allow for a level of flexibility that is much more difficult to reach when the islands are grouped together. 3.3.4 Conclusions: Shared Management Issues Despite Jurisdictional Differences The previous sections have shown that G u l f and San Juan islands have more management challenges in common than they have differences; this is presented in Table 5, below. The table shows that eight common management issues were identified, while only three differing management issues were identified between the two jurisdictions. Interestingly, these shared management issues - fragmentation between quality and quantity, lack of scientific information, contention over development, concerns about small drinking water supply systems, use of alternative water sources, conflict over water, and the presence of local water initiatives - are not necessarily unique to the islands. That these factors are driving on-the-ground management practices suggests that the research hypothesis may be generalizable beyond the case study presented here. The Gulf Islands Trust is a federation of independent local governments which plans land use and regulates development in the trust area. Their mandate is to protect and preserve the trust area, primarily through land use planning and regulation. For more information on the Gulf Islands Trust, please see http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/index.cfm 60 T A B L E 5: S U M M A R Y OF SHARED A N D DIFFERING M A N A G E M E N T ISSUES Issue Present on San Juan Islands? Present on Gulf Islands? Fragmentation between quality and quantity V V Lack of scientific information V V Lack of enforcement of existing regulations V V Contention over island development V V Concerns about small drinking water supply systems V V Use of alternative water sources V V Conflict over water V V Presence o f local water initiatives V v Attitude towards government Generally Ant i government Generally Pro government Water supply challenges for agriculture V X Drinking water standards Universal, set at federal level Varied: federal, provincial, local The next section overlays these results from interviews and from the workshop with the legislative review to show that not only are management challenges held on common between the jurisdictions, but that these are resulting in shared management practices. 61 3.4 Overlaying the Data: Deviation from Regulatory Intent, Local Initiatives, and On-the-Ground Management Practices The emergent hypothesis is grounded in findings resulting from overlaying the interview and workshop data with the legislative review. A s wi l l be elaborated upon in this section, it appears that current practices and deviations from regulatory intent are driven by local biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values. These on-the-ground deviations from regulatory intent take three main forms: deliberate avoidance, high 'one size fits a l l ' trigger thresholds, and lack of monitoring. For example, the B . C . 75L/second environmental assessment trigger was presumably developed to protect groundwater resources from negative environmental impacts; yet, there is concern about the environmental impacts of groundwater extraction at much lower rates than the trigger threshold. A Washington example of lack of monitoring is the 5,000 U S gallons/day extraction exemption, because it is impossible to monitor this regulation in the absence of universal metering. O f course, these categories are not clean-cut and some current practices are a function of more than one type of deviation from regulatory intent. The 'June 2006 Practice' columns in the tables below show each of the examples of deviation from regulatory intent that emerged from participant interviews. For the sake of simplicity, these deviations from regulatory intent are collectively referred to as 'loopholes' in the remainder of the thesis because they each signal a way in which current practices do not match up with the purpose o f the regulations. 62 This section of the thesis highlights deviations from regulatory intent (loopholes) in each jurisdiction in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Section 3.4.3 shows that these deviations result in many shared management practices. These findings drive the hypothesis that local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack o f enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. 3.4.1 Washington Participants in the San Juan Islands expressed a variety of viewpoints with respect to the current groundwater governance framework. One issue was the lack of adequate enforcement of existing regulations. One example, those using fewer than 5,000 U S gallons/day of groundwater are not required to apply for a groundwater license. However, since most wells are not required to be metered, there is currently no way of monitoring how much water a well owner is extracting. This is an example of the combination of a high trigger threshold (5,000 U S gallons/day) and lack of measurement. Participants' views with respect to the regulation and enforcement in Washington are included below: "There has to be something for standards and guidance. A n d there's no reason why that couldn't be a community ethic, rather than a regulation. But i f you don't 63 have a common agreement about the way things are done, having regulations can step in and take care of that" (Participant 11). "So how would you describe groundwater management in the County? I don't think there is any yet" (Participant 34) [Author's note: bold font indicates interviewer's speech]. " A n y way you can get around what may have been the intent of the law, we've been trying to navigate through and find a little softer cushion, for more density, a little more private property rights, whatever you want to call them." (Participant 6). "The [5,000 US gallon/day] exemption is a regulatory loophole and I think that it complicates water resource management because it allows people to develop water without much oversight and does prohibit us from truly overseeing the management of water." (Participant 17) A list o f current relevant groundwater legislation in Washington, as well as June 2006 practices is included in Table 6. 64 TABLE 6 : DEVIATION FROM REGULATORY INTENT: APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND CURRENT PRACTICES IN WASHINGTON Jurisdiction Legislation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the San Juan Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) State (Department of Ecology) Washington Water Code (1917) Prior appropriation wi l l be applied. Waters are common property and are available for private use, but not private ownership. A Water Right is required for surface water use. State (Department of Ecology) Groundwater Code (1945) Permit required for any wells withdrawing 5,000 gal/day (~ 18,9271/day)for stockwatering purposes, single or group domestic purposes, industrial purposes, or watering a lawn or non-commercial garden that is a half-acre or less in size 3 0 . San Juan County w i l l allow for up to 14 connections on a single exempt well, which allows for approximately 350 US gallons per household per day. Although this falls within the extraction exemption, it contravenes the purpose of the exemption limit, which is to exempt single private domestic users. Metering is required in community supply systems as well as in systems with fifteen or more connections. Because there is no requirement that individual wells be monitored, private well use is not measured and so enforcing the daily limit is difficult. State Water Well Mandates the licensing Not all drilled wells are Department of Ecology Water Regulations Website: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/98152/ 65 Jurisdiction Legislation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the San Juan Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) (Department of Ecology) Construction Act (1971) of well contractors and regulates well design. reported. State ( 1 9 9 0 -currently under revision) Growth Management Act (1990) The 1990 Washington Growth Management Act mandates that local jurisdictions adopt ordinances that classify, designate, and regulate land use in order to protect critical areas. Critical areas include aquifer recharge areas.31 The act also allows local government to direct growth to less sensitive areas. In order to receive a building permit, applicants must demonstrate that there is adequate potable water supply. Rainwater harvesting is currently not permitted without a surface water right. However, the County does issue building permits where the water source is rainwater harvesting. 3 3 Federal (US Environmental Protection Agency) Safe Drinking Water Act (last amended 1996) Sets national standards for drinking water quality. Responsibility for implementation delegated to states and tribes, with the exception of Wyoming and Washington, D . C . Most communities in San Juan County are in compliance with the water quality standards and testing requirement in the S D W A . However, there are some contaminants (e.g. trihalomethanes, arsenic) that are present in amounts that exceed the 3 1 Department of Ecology Critical Aquifer Recharge Area page: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/prndwtr/cara/index.html 3 2 Revised Code of Washington, Rule 19.27.097 3 3 This happens when a previously approved source of water is no longer available, for example, in building on a previously subdivided property. These are not issued for the subdivision of property, for which proof of adequate water supply other than rainwater is required. 66 Jurisdiction Legislation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the San Juan Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) regulatory standards. Federal (US Environmental Protection Agency) Clean Water Act (last amended 2002) Authorizes E P A to make grants to state authorities to develop groundwater protection strategies34 County (San Juan County Health) Rules and Regulations of the San Juan County Board of Health Regarding Water Wells and Water Systems San Juan County is responsible for monitoring the water quality of 'Group B ' water systems (systems with two to fourteen connections); the state is responsible for 'Group A ' water systems (systems with fifteen or more connections). US E P A Citizens' Guide to Groundwater Protection: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/citguid.pdf 67 3.4.2 British Columbia Participants in the Gu l f Islands expressed a variety of viewpoints with respect to the current groundwater governance framework. A s in Washington, one recurring point was the lack of adequate enforcement of existing regulations. A list of regulations and their respective loopholes is included in Table 7. A second recurring point among B . C . participants was their opinion that the existing legislation does not legally apply to them (in spite of the fact that it technically does). Participants repeatedly emphasized that the 2004 Ground Water Protection Regulation ( G W P R ) has not affected their daily operations or behaviour; some participants were not aware that the legislation existed. This may be partly explained by the relatively recent application of the G W P R . One participant discussed the issues of the new regulations -and their lack of impact upon them - as follows: "We are aware of [the G W P R ] , but that doesn't affect individual wells, it only affects systems of 2 or more... It has no impact whatsoever...I don't think any new legislation or programs by the province has affected [groundwater management] at a l l . . . But that legislation hasn't changed anything, I think it's pretty benign stuff." (Participant 9) Finally, the fragmented nature of the Gul f Islands' water governance structure was of concern to many participants. Relevant governmental bodies included the Provincial Ministry of Environment, the Provincial Ministry of Health, the Provincial Ministry o f Community Services, the Provincial Ministry of Transportation, the Capital Regional 68 District, the regional health authority, and the Islands Trust. Health Canada also plays a role since their Drinking Water Guidelines are used by the Capital Regional District. A list of current relevant groundwater legislation in British Columbia, as well as June 2006 practices is included in Table 7, below. 69 T A B L E 7: DEVIATION FROM R E G U L A T O R Y INTENT: A P P L I C A B L E LEGISLATION A N D C U R R E N T PRACTICES IN BRITISH C O L U M B I A Jurisdiction Legislation / Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the Gulf Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) Provincial (Ministry of Environment) The Water Act (1909) Deals with the specifics of well construction and enables the 2004 Ground Water Protection Regulation. Sections 62-67 of the act, introduced in 2001, sets the parameters around which water management plans can be formulated Section 78 of the Act, introduced in November 2004, states that: A person must not operate a well in a manner that causes or is likely to cause the intrusion of saltwater or contaminated water into an aquifer from which that well draws ground water, or any well that draws ground water from that aquifer. 3 5 Saltwater intrusion is occurring on the islands. To date, no one has been charged under this section of the act. 3 6 Provincial (Ministry of Transportation) Local Services Act (\951), Subdivision Regulations (1970) This regulation applies to subdivision in any area in the Province that is not a municipality. Sections 4.09-4.11 (added in 1970) state that Subdivision approvals that include a community water supply are issued only to proposals indicating that there is an "adequate supply of potable water" at the proposed building site. According to the Ministry's > B.C. Water Act (1909), s. 78 (2) Personal Communication, June 2007 70 Jurisdiction Legislation / Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the Gulf Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) website, " I f there is no subdivision bylaw regulating proof of water supply, the Approving Officer may require proof of 2500 litres per day per dwelling unit, as well as a statement from a laboratory regarding the water's quality." 3 7 , 3 Water may be supplied from individual surface sources, individual wells on site, a new water system, or from the extension of an existing 39 water system. Provincial (Ministry of Environment) B.C. Water Utility Act (1973) Section 5, added in 1989, requires application for a 'certificate of public convenience and necessity' for wells that wi l l be used in such a way as to qualify them as a Water Ut i l i ty . 4 0 This process can be avoided by going through the Ministry of Transportation Subdivision Approval Regulations. Provincial (Ministry of Community Services) Local Government Act (\919), Islands Trust Act (1990) Section 903, added in 1985, gives local governments -including the Islands Trust -jurisdiction over zoning and land use planning. 4 1 The act also allows the Islands Trust to oversee the formulation of Official 3 7 B.C. Ministry of Transportation (2006). 3 8 It should also be noted that B.C. septic systems that used to be regulated by the Province are now installed by private, licensed septic system installers. Septic system installation now falls under Health act and the ministry of health now holds this responsibility. 3 9 B.C. Ministry of Transportation (2006) 4 0 B.C. Water Utility Act, (1973), s. 5. Prior to enactment of the Act in 1973, water utilities were regulated under the B.C. Public Utilities Act, which was last consolidated in 1960. As of 1973, the Public Utilities Act was repealed in 1973 and replaced with separate acts for each of the utilities. 4 1 B.C. Local Government Act (1979), s. 903. When this section was added in 1985, it was added as section 963, but was renumbered between 1985 and 1996. This section was last amended in 2000. 71 Jurisdiction Legislation / Key Points Relating to June 2006 Regulation Groundwater Management Practice in the Gulf Islands (including deviation from regulatory intent) Community Plans for each of the islands. Provincial Drinking Water Specifies that drinking water (Ministry of Protection Act sources, including aquifers, Health) (2001) are to be protected. Water supply systems must provide potable water. A There are many 'Water supply system' is a different standards domestic system serving in place. Drinking more than one single-family water quality is residence. Potable water is therefore water that meets the inconsistent standards set out in the throughout the Regulations associated with islands. the act. Potable water standards are defined in this act. There are three contaminants to be monitored for: Fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and total coliform bacteria. 4 2 Under the Act, the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) issues Wells are only construction permits for tested at the time "water treatment plants, of construction; reservoirs, disinfection there is no systems and water ongoing quality transmission and distribution monitoring. systems" 4 3. The V I H A construction 4 2 B.C. Drinking Water Protection Act (2001), s. 1. Standards here are tied to Standards set out in the B.C. Health Act. 4 3 Vancouver Island Health Authority website: http://www.viha.ca/mho/environnient/water_quality/drinking_water.htm 4 4 Vancouver Island Health Authority "Guidelines for the Approval of Water Supply Systems" 72 Jurisdiction Legislation / Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the Gulf Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) permit requirements stipulate that water transmission and disinfection systems must provide 225L/person/day, and water quality must meet the V I H A standards that fall between the B . C . drinking water standards under the B . C . drinking water protection regulation and the Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 4 4 Provincial (Ministry of Environment) Environmental Assessment Act (1994), Reviewable Projects Regulation (2002) Projects proposing to extract groundwater at a rate equal to or greater than 75 litres per second are subject to an environmental impact assessment.45 This level o f extraction triggers a review. It is acknowledged that high extraction levels can contribute to saltwater intrusion. Regional (Gulf Islands Trust) Islands Trust Council Policy Statement Amendment Bylaw No. 87 (2002) States that "It is Trust Council's policy that islands in the Trust Area should be self-sufficient in regard to their supply of freshwater." Bulk water hauling is common on the islands. This practice brings into question the islands' self-sufficiency. Capital Regional District (Building Inspection Division) Building Regulation Bylaw No. 4 (2002) Applicants for a building permit must demonstrate that there is potable water on the building site. For the water supply systems the C R D operates, potable water is defined as water that meets the Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Local water quality bylaws can override the C R D water quality guidelines. Some islands have their own drinking water quality standards. B . C . Reviewable Projects Regulation (2002), s. 11 (4) 73 Jurisdiction Legislation / Regulation Key Points Relating to Groundwater Management in the Gulf Islands June 2006 Practice (including deviation from regulatory intent) Provincial (Ministry of Environment) Ground Water Protection Regulation (2004) Deals with the registration of well drillers, specifies specific well construction and sealing provisions, well identification, and protects groundwater through proper closing of wells no longer in use. Many participants were not aware of the new G W P R regulations, and thus some of the provisions in the act were not followed. Provincial (Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing, Office of Housing and Construction Standards) B . C . Building Code (last updated 2006) Section 9.31.3 of the code states that "every dwelling unit shall be supplied with potable water", where potable water is defined in the Drinking Water Protection Act and the Health Act: There are three contaminants to be monitored for: Fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and total coliform bacteria. Different islands have different definitions of 'potable'. 3.4.3 From Shared Management Challenges to Shared Management Practices: Regulatory Deviation and the Role of the Local Tables 6 and 7 show that groundwater governance on the Gul f and San Juan Islands is currently characterized by management frameworks that distribute management responsibility between a variety of agencies, and by legislation that is perceived to be not applicable, not enforced. The diversity of responsible agencies and current practices are documented in the tables above, which show the following: 74 • The seven major pieces of groundwater legislation in Washington are split between the County, two state departments, one federal department; • Current practices deviating from regulatory intent were identified in four of these seven major pieces of groundwater legislation in Washington; • The ten major pieces of groundwater legislation in British Columbia are split between five provincial ministries, two regional districts, one regional government, and four islands; 4 6 and • Current practices deviating from regulatory intent were identified in seven of these nine major pieces of groundwater legislation in B . C . This fragmentation of responsibility is not necessarily negative. There is an argument to be made that this diversity of rule makers helps to ensure that a variety of stakeholder interests are represented. Further, the diversity could theoretically ensure that some groundwater programming could still continue in the event of significant departmental turnover or funding cuts. However, these benefits would only emerge with a high degree of interagency information sharing and cooperation. Examining these relationships was not the purpose of the case study and so it is not possible to comment extensively here, although the data suggest that perhaps the varying agencies were not working with as high degree of cooperation as possible. The focus of the subsequent discussion here, though, is the finding that despite what appear to be two very different sets of legislation, some of the critical ways in which groundwater is managed on the ground are the same. Examples of this include: The four islands here are North and South Pender, Salt Spring and Gabriola. Because each island has its own Official Community Plan and local by-laws, the number of islands with regulation is a function of the total number of islands. 75 • Unregulated private wells: Despite more stringent regulations on wells with two or more connections, private wells extracting less than 5,000 U.S . Gallons per day are exempt from regulations in Washington. 7 In effect, private wells - which account for most of the wells on both sides of the border - are unlicensed in both jurisdictions. • Rainwater Harvesting: Although neither jurisdiction has regulation explicitly mandating rainwater harvesting, actors on both sides of the border are actively encouraging it. In June 2006, this was an act of regulatory non-compliance in Washington; in B . C . it was an extra-regulatory initiative. 8 Action related to rainwater is driven by physical geography: the islands receive significant rainfall in winter but the islands' aquifers are unable to store it all. • Bulk Water Hauling: Bulk water hauling is occurring in both jurisdictions in order to supplement summer supply. In Washington this is legal; in B : C . it contravenes Islands Trust Policy. Within the confines of a single island, this hauling is a function of local geography; water-rich areas sell water to water-poor areas of the same island. Water hauling is also a function of local economy because hauled water is relatively expensive. • Consideration of Development and the 'Water Card' : In both jurisdictions, discussions about groundwater are inextricably tied to discussions about island development and the use of the so-called 'water card' by pro and anti-development groups to further their aims. In both jurisdictions, groundwater and development are used as proxies for one another in highly polarized debates, the results of which often drive local policies, and, in the case of B . C . , island by-laws. Tension over the 'water card' stems -at least in part - from the economic weight of the tourism and construction industries pitted against the community values of year-round residents. If, as is suggested above, the actual management practices are similar despite different regulatory frameworks, what does that suggest about the role of regulation? Since the islands share similar Mediterranean climates, construction and tourism-dependent economies, and some community values, it is suggested here that these are significant drivers of management. These factors and their role in shaping local groundwater management are summarized in Table 8, below. The table shows, schematically, the Although this regulation is impossible to enforce because universal metering is not required, the vast majority of private users withdraw well under 5,000 U.S. gallons per day. 4 8 As of June 2007, the regulations in San Juan County were under review and are likely to change within the next year to make rainwater harvesting a legal activity. 76 transformation from regulation to practice, with intervening local factors listed in between. T A B L E 8: F R O M LEGISLATION TO PRACTICE: T H E R O L E OF INTERVENING L O C A L FACTORS Issue Relevant Legislation in WA Relevant Legislation in B.C. Intervening Factor Shared Management Practice Licensing Groundwater Code (1917): Extraction exemption limit of 5,000 U S gallons per day coupled with lack of metering No current legislation None Unregulated private wells Rainwater Harvesting Washington Water Code (1917): A s of June 2006, rainwater harvesting contravened state legislation requiring a surface water right for rainwater use. This is under review as of July 2007. No current legislation Biophysical characteristics Governmental support for rainwater harvesting Bulk Water Hauling No regulation supporting or banning bulk water hauling. U S E P A drinking water standards apply to water haulers. Contravenes Islands Trust Policy Statement Amendment Bylaw No. 87. V I H A Drinking water regulations apply to water haulers. Biophysical characteristics and local economy Bulk water Hauling Growth The Growth Management Act (1990) allows for consideration of critical aquifer recharge areas in local planning. Each of the islands' Official Community Plans Local economy, local culture and values Consideration of development and the water card 77 The hypothesis generated from this research, then, is that local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations. This thesis, and its implications, is explored in chapter four. 78 4. D I S C U S S I O N This section uses research findings from the previous sections to develop a research hypothesis and to explore the potential implications of such a hypothesis. Section 4.1 explains the hypothesis generated from the research. Should this hypothesis be generalizable beyond the case study presented in the previous section, it would have implications for water and groundwater governance more generally; these implications are explored in section 4.2. Finally, section 4.3 offers recommendations for the study of water governance and suggests directions for future research. This last section also offers more concrete recommendations for the Province of British Columbia. Section 4.4 concludes the chapter by discussing limitations to the concluding hypothesis and possible directions for future research. 4.1 Theory and Practice: Generalizability and a New Hypothesis It is clear that despite different regulatory frameworks, there are many similarities with respect to groundwater management in the Gul f and San Juan Islands. These similarities are documented in the concluding section of the previous chapter (3.4.3), and show that the way groundwater is being managed on the islands on either side of the border is not as different as the written regulations would suggest. Since the islands share similar physical features, economic priorities, and some community values, it is suggested here that these factors are driving management as much as - or perhaps more than - the written regulations. 79 If the research hypothesis - local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement of a significant number of applicable regulations - is correct, and i f the study's findings are generalizable beyond the case study setting, this hypothesis has implications for water and groundwater governance more generally. Three of these implications - disconnect between policy and management, effective scales of governance, and enforcement of regulations - w i l l be discussed here. Finally, this section wi l l offer recommendations for water (and groundwater) governance more generally, as well as more concrete recommendations for the B .C. islands. 80 4.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r W a t e r Governance The generalizability of the case study presented here is dependent on evidence of similar management challenges and lack of enforcement. Although there is little literature on regulatory compliance (or lack thereof) relating directly to water, some relevant literature does exist with respect to regulatory noncompliance in other sectors. For example, in speaking to the American context in the mid-nineties, Brehm and Hamilton suggest that that most models o f environmental enforcement are based on the assumption that "the legal standards are known to all parties", but that in fact, ignorance of these standards may be a significant factor in explaining noncompliance (Brehm and Hamilton 1996: 473). The research conducted here supports the Brehm and Hamilton hypothesis that ignorance o f regulations is a significant factor in noncompliance and suggests and lack o f monitoring and enforcement is a partial explanation for this lack o f awareness. Noncompliance is also addressed in the literature in an economic context, with one author suggesting that the cost-benefit decision-making models used to evaluate a particular piece of regulation "assume full compliance [and are] likely to be misleading i f 'slippage' occurs during implementation - particularly i f that slippage is substantial" (Heyes 2000:107). This is consistent with the literature addressed in chapter two and relates to the science-policy interface, which appears to be premised on the underlying assumption that policy can be equated to management. Finally, many of the shared management challenges presented in section 3.3.2 are not unique to the islands. For example, fragmentation of responsibility for water quality and quantity is pervasive in many jurisdictions and concerns about small systems exist throughout Canada. Even what 81 seem to be more localized concerns - such as contention over development - can be found in other areas.4 9 The existence of such closely related literature in other contexts suggests that the regulatory deviation addressed in this research context are not unique to the islands presented in the case study and supports the generalizability of the research hypothesis. This suggests an opportunity for future research in three critical areas: further exploration of the relationship between regulation and management, examination of the most appropriate scales of governance for different types of regulation, and the role of enforcement. This section discusses three possible implications of the new hypothesis for groundwater governance: the disconnect between policy and management, appropriate scales of groundwater governance, and the role o f enforcement. Recommendations based on these implications are discussed in section 4.3. 4.2.1 Disconnect Between Policy and Management One significant implication of the findings is that they question the assumption that policy can be equated to on-the-ground management. The research suggests that policy/management 'mismatch' could be because regulations are only one of a multitude 4 9 Concerns about water as is relates to development is not unique to the islands; a 1994 study in Pennsylvania found that "Public concern on water issues has been voiced for years in Bucks County [Pennsylvania] and often has been a surrogate issue between those for and against development" (Puci 1994: 988). 82 of factors that groundwater managers use to guide their decisions. These other factors may include things such as the biophysical characteristics of the resource, economic pressure, social pressure, or cultural 'norms'. That is, water managers do not make decisions in a vacuum where they are influenced only by regulations. Rather, regulatory pressures as well as the economic and social circumstances of their communities and the physical characteristics of the local groundwater resource itself impact managers' decision-making processes. This explicitly addressed by Turton et. al. in a recent book entitled Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. Here, one of the authors' central conclusions is that "Governance is dynamic in nature and is enmeshed in the social, economic, biophysical and political landscape in which it occurs" (2007: 343). Thus, the first related area of potential future research would be a closer examination of the intervening factors between policy and management. We know from the case study presented here that there are other intervening factors; examples of these are shown schematically in Figure 5 below. 83 FIGURE 5: T H E R O L E OF DECISION-MAKING: B E T W E E N POLICY A N D M A N A G E M E N T f . Regulations Management Local Geography Local Decision-Making Economic Priorities Community Values Future research could include, for example, concretely identifying these issues (which would o f course vary across locales) and the quantifying their degree o f influence. Such research would be valuable to policy makers, as it would aid in the development o f effective policy reflective of existent practices. It is precisely this element of local control that speaks to the second significant implication o f the research findings: the examination of appropriate scales of governance. 4.2.2 Scales of Regulation and Management A second significant implication of the research is its implicit questioning of the most effective scale of governance for groundwater resources. This can be seen as an extension of the previous implication, since many of the potential factors influencing 84 regulatory implementation are local. A s identified above, examples of this on the islands studied include local geography, economic priorities, and community culture and values. Because groundwater resources are inherently local (i.e., communities are situated literally on top of the groundwater resources they depend on), it is easy to understand why management decisions are impacted by local physical geography. A t the same time, however, local water managers have limited authority over groundwater resources and are subject to a variety o f regulations at either the Provincial/State level or the Federal level. Given this apparent contradiction, what is the most appropriate scale for governing groundwater? Within the case study presented here, working regulation appeared at a variety o f scales, where a given regulation could be said to be working when it was implemented and enforced on the ground and when local decision makers expressed support for it. Some participants saw national, provincial, or state regulation as advantageous in that these regulations allow the local manager to point the finger at the higher-up regulators while enforcing minimum standards. For example, drinking water standards for community systems in the United States are set by the U S E P A . If a developer expresses concern that the standards are too stringent, local authorities can in effect say "sorry, it 's not up to us, it's the Feds", thereby avoiding blame while still enforcing a standard they believe to be effective. A t the same time, however, there is concern that regulations developed at the Federal, Provincial, or State level may be too general and not appropriate for the islands. For example, the B . C . Environmental Impact Assessment regulation sets the trigger for 85 an environmental impact assessment at a groundwater withdrawal rate of 75 litres/second. Because this is a much higher withdrawal rate than any single user on the island is using, no environmental impact assessment has been triggered on the islands. Yet participants expressed concern about the environmental impacts of heavy groundwater users on the islands. In such a case, it could be said that this Provincial regulation is not appropriate. Local regulations have a slightly different set of challenges. Although they may be locally appropriate, it can be difficult for local authorities to create and enforce regulations that are so 'close to home'. And so while local regulations may be better suited to a given location, they may be more politically contentious. Further, local decision-makers may not have access to the same resources (financial, human, and informational) as their counterparts in higher levels of government. In attempting to untangle working regulations from non-working ones, language from the human rights field may be helpful. Here a distinction is made between negative and positive rights. Here, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to a certain activity or event; an obvious example of this would be the right to not be tortured. Conversely, a positive right is one that requires action; examples of this include the right to education, or the right to equal pay for equal work. A n interesting parallel can be drawn between positive and negative rights, and water regulations, which can be assigned positive or negative categories here. Examples of negative water regulations could be defined here as regulations that have a threshold below which the regulation does not apply. For example, this could include: the Washington 5000 U.S. gallon groundwater withdrawal 86 exemption, the B . C . E I A regulation of a 751itre/second assessment trigger, B . C . and Washington water quality monitoring triggers of two wells or more, and the voluntary (i.e., non regulated) submission o f well records by B . C . well drillers. Positive regulations, on the other hand, could be defined as water regulations requiring a specific action or a change in behaviour on the part of individuals, developers, or other actors. Examples of this include the B . C . and Washington regulations governing the licensing of well drillers and the construction of wells, the B . C . and Washington requirements proof of adequate potable water before construction permits can be issued, and the Washington Growth Management Act mandating protection ordinances for critical aquifer recharge areas. In general, participants were critical of negative regulations, often saying that they were designed for the whole jurisdiction and were not well suited to the islands. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, participants reacted more favourably to positive regulations. In other words, participants generally saw regulations stipulating specific actions more positively than regulations exempting action. One possible reason for this is that most participants saw the water situation on the islands as one that needed to be changed, and so positive regulation signals that something is being done. O f course these positive and negative categories are not clear-cut. For example, the negative regulation of the 75 litres per second trigger for environmental assessments is a positive one for parties wishing to extract at an equal or greater rate. In addition, changing standards can cause a particular regulation to go from positive to negative, or 87 vice versa. For example, i f the 5,000 U.S . Gallons per day extraction limit were lowered to a level that a typical household uses - say 400 U.S . Gallons per day - it would go from a negative regulation where almost everyone was under the limit to a positive regulation where almost everyone would need a water right. In a sense, these nuances between negative and positive regulations were implicit in the discussion at the beginning of section 3.4 (see p 61), where different types of deviation from regulatory intent were considered and before their conflation in the collective term of ' loopholes' . Recalling that the purpose of this discussion is to identify the most appropriate scale o f regulations for groundwater governance, a few key pieces of information from the preceding are worth highlighting. First, positive regulations tend to be locally legislated while negative regulations tend to be legislated at higher levels of authority; and second, positive regulations seem to be 'working' better. In other words, local and positive regulations appear to be 'working' best. A significant exception to this generalization is standards imposed by higher levels of government that allow local authorities to enforce standards while sidestepping blame. A n example of this is the drinking water standards set by the U S E P A . If the findings of this study are generalizable, it tells us that what 'works best' are minimum standards set by higher levels of government coupled with local regulations that mandate specific and locally appropriate actions. This conclusion is consistent with literature supporting a multiscalar approach. This approach is supported by groups such as the Conference Board of Canada, who advocate for a 'nested' approach to water 88 governance, which "allows decisions to be made at the most appropriate level by the managers who are closest to the issue" (Conference Board of Canada 2007: 9 ) . 5 0 Although the Conference Board of Canada report is recent, support for a multi-pronged approach is not new to the literature. In speaking to the Canadian situation in 1995, Harrison suggests that one method of increasing environmental compliance would be to "Administratively separate the functions of technical support and enforcement. Compliance officers could be encouraged to explain regulatory requirements and offer technical support in a cooperative manner, while enforcement officials could be expected to enforce standards in a more adversarial manner" (Harrison 1995: 241). Although Harrison's suggestion is not necessarily multiscalar, it could be administered as such (through, for example, the above-mentioned nested approach, whereby local authorities could undertake the former role and state or provincial roles the latter) and offers one possible solution to the issue of regulatory non-enforcement and subsequent noncompliance. It is this third research area - enforcement and compliance - that is addressed in the following section. The concept of multiscalar governance is not news; the concept has been explored by a number of scholars, perhaps most notably by Erik Swyngedouw. Swyngedouw introduced the concept of 'glocalization': "a political-economic transformation characterized by a parallel and simultaneous movement to the smaller and the larger scale, to the local and the global" (1997: 414-2). This concept is also addressed by Rhodes, who writes that the 'hollowing out' of the state, coupled with public and inter-governmental management, is the new 'governance' (Rhodes 1996). 89 4.2.3 Enforcement A third implication of the research findings relates to the role o f enforcement (or lack thereof), which may help to explain the apparent disjuncture between regulation and management. Existing literature suggests that enforcement is often lacking in environmental regulation more generally (e.g., Boyd 2003; Cohen 1998; Lee and Pearl 2003; Naysnerski 1992). Indeed, one author suggests that "The consequences of ignoring monitoring and enforcement issues can be disastrous for environmental quality and for social welfare. If a regulatory agency imposes a new stricter regulation but noncompliance is rampant, it is possible that the ultimate result w i l l be more pollution -not less pollution" (Cohen 1998: 44). 5 1 Lack o f enforcement on the islands has two central consequences: exacerbation of unawareness of regulations, and decreased effectiveness of regulations. The former point relates to interview data suggesting that not all regulations are known and understood by all relevant parties, particularly in B . C . Thus, by not following through on existing regulations, the problem of lack of awareness of regulations is exacerbated. This issue is not unique to the G u l f Islands; a 1996 paper highlights the importance of the "street level phase of regulatory politics", suggesting that "Most models of environmental enforcement are derived from economic theories of crime and punishment in which the legal standards are known to all parties" and concluding that this ideal scenario is not the 5 1 The footnote on this statement in Cohen's paper reads as follows: "This is not just a hypothetical statement. For example, Sigman (1998), discussed in Section 4.1.3, estimates that banning the legal disposal of used oil and requiring instead that it be reused or recycled will result in a significant increase in waste oil being dumped illegally - which is more hazardous than the previously legal method of disposal" (Cohen 1998: 44). 90 case and that ignorance of the law may explain environmental noncompliance (Brehm 1996: 473). Visible monitoring and enforcement (coupled with education) has a valuable contribution here, as Brehm's writing suggests that regulatory awareness may lead to increased compliance. A second consequence of lack of enforcement is that lack of regulatory compliance questions the effectiveness of the regulation in question. In other words, even the most scientifically sound, locally appropriate, and innovative regulations are ineffective i f they are not implemented on the ground. Regulations' effectiveness is in part a function of regulatory implementation, which is virtually impossible to measure without monitoring and enforcement. As one economist observes in speaking to the issue of environmental noncompliance in economic assessments of potential regulations, "It risks banality to say that implementation is an important part of policy-making, yet in many fields economists pay scant attention to issues of enforcement and compliance" (Heyes, 2000: 123). Some potential solutions - including the potential separation of technical support from enforcement - are discussed in section 4.2.2 and are revisited in section 4.3. 91 4.3 Recommendations Three types of recommendations are included in this section. The first set of recommendations is included in section 4.3.1, and was developed based on successful management practices drawn from each side of the border. The second set - in section 4.3.2, are recommendations that can be applied to future study and the conceptualization of water governance more generally. The third set of recommendations in section 4.3.3 is more specific, and speaks to more concrete actions that could be undertaken by the Provincial government. 4.3.1 Possibilities for Learning Lessons across the Border This first set of recommendations comes from water management practices in place on the ground in various locations on the case study islands. Because some practices are currently implemented in one jurisdiction or on one island, their success may signal opportunities for future governance initiatives. The first of these successful management practices is metering. In one subdivision on one of the B . C . Islands, volunteers read water meters and residents' bi-monthly water usage is posted. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is effective in the case study area. Further, other research addressing water metering suggests that metering is an effective way to reduce water demand (Brandes et. al. 2006; Campbell 2004; Henderson 2006; U S E P A 1998), an emerging concept addressed in chapter two. Although there is no requirement for universal metering on any of the case study islands, its existence and 92 success to date on some of the B . C . islands (one case study island and Bowen Island) suggests that it is a pragmatic and effective method of reducing water demand that could be applied on either side of the border. A second example of successful management on the islands is the practice of monitoring currently undertaken by the San Juan County Watershed Management Committee as well as one of the Canadian case study islands. In both cases, programs seek resident volunteers to put data loggers in their wells. It is hoped that the resulting data w i l l be useful in developing future water use plans. The recommendation here is for increased support for local monitoring in order to increase the accuracy and viability of future planning endeavours. A third example of successful management practices is the island-by-island planning flexibility afforded by the Islands Trust structure. Although strong 'backstop' regulation may be needed to set minimum standards, flexibility in regulation to meet each o f the islands' unique supply and demand situations may be appropriate. For example, Lopez receives the least rainfall of the San Juan Islands and is also the only island composed of glacial deposit (rather than fractured bedrock). This combination of factors means that Lopez has the highest rates of saltwater intrusion in the County, yet it is subject to the same regulations as the other islands. Since each island has a different supply (rainfall) and demand (residency) pattern, island-by-island flexibility may be most appropriate for come types of community planning. Interestingly, since each island is completely dependent on its own rainfall for its water supply, this amounts essentially to watershed-93 level .planning - the planning level increasingly recognized as most appropriate for watershed planning. Following on this, one potential mechanism that would allow for local flexibility while ensuring compliance with provincial 'backstop' regulation would be for the province could create a number, of different regulations for the same issue. For example, the province could set different limits for maximum well depths and extraction rates depending on aquifer type; this would mean that bedrock aquifers and glacial deposit aquifers were regulated differently. Similarly, regulations for minimum setbacks from shorelines could be calculated based on topography and aquifer type, while rainwater harvesting could be mandated in the building code in regions with high seasonal rainfall and low storage capacity. Under this scheme, different provincial would 'k ick in ' under different circumstances so that different parts of the province would have locally appropriate regulation to follow while still meeting provincial standards. 4.3.2 General Recommendations Stemming from Implications Given the potential implications listed in section 4.2, some general recommendations can be made about the way that water (and groundwater) governance is addressed in practice as well as in the academic literature. The first implication identified above was the importance of the relationship between policy and management. One place where this relationship has been traditionally taken for granted has been in the emergent science-policy dialogue with respect to water. This 94 dialogue has come to recent prominence and is predicated on the belief that policy is most effective when it is grounded in science, and that science can be most pragmatic by tailoring its research to answer policy-relevant questions. Examples of this dialogue in the Canadian context include the Canadian Water Network's focus on water science and policy (initiated in 2002), the National Water Research Institute's science-policy workshop series, and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment workshop series. The issue of science-policy-management is addressed surprisingly rarely in the academic literature; however, one author does explicitly address the issue. Linda Godfrey, in discussing the linkages between science, government, and society, suggests that the "strength and activity of the interface between [science, government, and society] appears to be dependent on a number of factors, including . . .The culture of the specific government departments engaged in the process, and the socio-economic conditions o f the society" (Godfrey 2007: 327). Since there is so little explicit discussion on these issues, and since it has been established here that policy does not automatically translate into management, perhaps a first step here would be to extend the science-policy discussion to a science-policy-management-discussion, as illustrated schematically in Figure 6 below. 95 FIGURE 6: ADDING MANAGEMENT TO THE DIALOGUE Here, we see that management is related to both policy and science, in that policies are designed to be implementable, and management challenges drive scientific inquiry. Research and action based on this tripartite model may offer more concrete solutions to water challenges than models based solely on science and policy. Study in this area would be grounded not only in evidence suggested here but also in growing evidence of a direct science-management connection, whereby local managers are taking initiatives based on local science. 5 2 A second implication discussed above was that of scale; it was suggested that different levels of government are better suited to different types of regulation. Formulating regulations according to this model - where higher levels of government set minimum standards and local governments create specific, action-based local regulations - could enable different scales of government to take action in areas where the regulations they create would have a significant impact while minimizing resources devoted to 5 2 Examples here are not limited to the islands. For example, the city of North Vancouver has pioneered a number of water-saving and stormwater initiatives based on science emerging at the University of British Columbia without waiting for legislation regulating them to do so. 96 inappropriate and unimplemented regulations. A significant caveat to this recommendation is that it would only be feasible if local authorities were equipped with sufficient resources (financial and otherwise) to carry out the tasks asked of them. Finally, the suggestion that enforcement is the linchpin of effective regulation highlights the need for robust enforcement of any regulation. The recommendation here, then, is that enforcement be an integral part of any new regulation, and that regulators acknowledge the importance of monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations. While it may be politically advantageous to create visible water regulations, it is not always as politically beneficial to enforce them. This political barrier to enforcement is one area where further research is needed. One possible way to overcome this barrier would be the nested and multiscalar approaches discussed in section 4.2.2. Eisner, who addresses the issue of the 'issue attention cycle' - identified by Harrison as 'green waves', also addresses the issue. Eisner suggests that this cycle of public attention offers two lessons to policy makers: First, strike while the iron is hot (act with issue salience is high), and second, "lock in today's victories and insulate them from an uncertain future through institutional design" (Eisner 2007: 67). One way to 'lock in' these victories, of course, is to incorporate them into law, which speaks to Coggins' assertion that "Without the force of law, local plans and local allocative solutions are written on the sand" (Coggins 2001: 169). Thus, incorporating robust enforcement into legislation may be another way to overcome political barriers to enforcement, although perhaps only feasible in times of high political salience of regulatory noncompliance. 97 4.3.3 Concrete Recommendations to the Province Groundwater governance on the Gul f and San Juan Islands is currently characterized by management frameworks that distribute management responsibility between a variety of agencies, and by legislation that is perceived to be either not applicable or not enforced. These specific recommendations that follow are consistent with findings presented by David Boyd who suggests that " A n assessment of the laws and regulations that have contributed to environmental progress in Canada reveals that effective environmental laws share five common features: (1) clear jurisdiction or cooperation between different levels of government; (2) clear, measurable, enforceable standards; (3) mandatory language; (4) effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms, including incentives and penalties; and (5) adequate resources for implementation and enforcement" (2003: 219). Virtually none of these features are currently in place on the islands, and the following discussion suggests how some of these features could be could be incorporated into water governance frameworks on the islands. There are a number of barriers to effective groundwater management on the islands: fragmentation between quality and quantity and the challenge of integrating governmental agencies, lack of metering, lack of information, lack of capacity to enforce existing regulation, and regional appropriateness of the regulation given the physical variation of the two respective jurisdictions are examples of these. The initiation of a water management plan for the islands and the development of a suite of provincial standards are two ways in which some of the above challenges can be addressed; these are detailed in the following paragraphs. 98 Water Management Plans (WMPs) are discussed in section four of the Water Act, which states that "The minister may, by order, designate an area for the purpose of developing a water management plan if the minister considers that a plan will assist in addressing or preventing (a) conflicts between water users, (b) conflicts between water users and instream flow requirements, or (c) risks to water quality" (B.C. Water Act, s.4). The province's first and only water management plan is currently underway in the township of Langley. One of the aims of the Langley plan is to "develop policies and regulations to protect local groundwater resources for community use" (Township of Langley website), and it seems as though a plan with such an aim would be useful in the context of the Gulf Islands. The process for developing WMPs is vague, and so clarifying the vision for the WMPs is a critical first step. Of course, clarification of the WMP development process depends in large part of the purpose of the WMP system. For example, is the provincial vision a network of WMPs covering the province, or is it for a very small number of cases where water management is a particularly critical issue? In either case, there are some basic regulations and practices that may be of use in WMPs province wide. These are listed below, as well as their potential applicability to the Gulf Islands. • A requirement for well licensing would address the need for more data and would facilitate future rule making. License fees could be used to hire personnel responsible for the monitoring of water quality and quantity on the islands, thereby allaying concerns over the disbursement of licensing fees. • Metering addresses the need for more data and the need for more education, and could easily be incorporated with the above recommendation for licensing. Metering would help address the question of sustainable island yield by quantifying extraction rates, thereby increasing the accuracy of community 99 planning and saltwater intrusion models. Metering also has an educational component derived from residents' knowledge of their own water use. • Increased resources for data collection with respect to water quality and quantity would further enhance the capacity for community planning and could provide some early warning mechanisms (for example, if the water table falls below a certain level in the summer, it may be necessary to restrict extraction to prevent saltwater intrusion). • Expertise is critical in formulating WMPs. Because the islands have a number of residents with experience in water management this might not be a significant challenge in this case. However, other areas of the province with fewer resident experts may need external expertise in order to make well - informed decisions. • Any regulations undertaken as part of a WMP are presumably well suited to the local environment (both physical and human) and should contain provisions for robust monitoring and enforcement in order to ensure the effectiveness. • Specific regulations with respect to well depth, extraction limits, and setbacks from septic systems and shorelines could be applied from a suite of provincial standards (also see section 4.3.1). This would allow for locally appropriate regulation that meets provincial standards and avoids the (near impossible) task of creating meaningful and appropriate 'one size fits all' regulations. This combination of licensing, metering, data collection, expertise, monitoring and enforcement coupled with specific regulations with respect to well depth, extraction limits, and setbacks from septic systems and shorelines would provide a pragmatic framework for the formation of future WMPs, including a plan for the Gulf Islands. Metering has other advantages in addition to monitoring. Some research suggests that metering reduces demand for water. See appendix 5 for an example of such research. 100 4.4 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research The research presented here has suggested that local local factors (including biophysical characteristics, economic priorities, and community culture and values) are equal or greater drivers of local groundwater management than formal governance frameworks due to the frequent absence, inappropriateness, and lack of enforcement o f a significant number of applicable regulations. This hypothesis is grounded in case study evidence suggesting that on-the-ground management of groundwater resources on the G u l f and San Juan Island are remarkably similar, despite different regulatory frameworks. Since the G u l f and San Juan islands share similar geography, hydrogeology, climate, residency patterns, economic patterns, and community values and culture, it is hypothesized that these - and not the regulations - are the primary drivers of on-the-ground management decisions. Evidence from the literature suggests that this hypothesis may be generalizable, although a significant caveat here is that it is l ikely only applicable in small communities; it is unlikely that the hypothesis would hold true in a large urban centre. The potential implications of such a hypothesis were also presented and suggest possible directions for future research. These include a more in-depth exploration of the policy-management relationship through the identification of intervening factors and the measurement of their degree of influence; further exploration of the nested, multiscalar approach to water governance - particularly as it applies to enforcement; and further research on regulatory monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of groundwater regulation in this and other areas. 101 5. B i b l i o g r a p h y 5.1 Literary Sources Agriculture Canada Research Branch (1987), "Soils of the Gu l f Islands of British Columbia" Report No . 43. Al lan A . and P. Wouters (2004), What Role for Water Law in the Emerging 'Good Governance'Debate?, Water Law, 15(3-4): 85-88. Al len , D . M . and M . Suchy (2001), Geochemical Evolution of Groundwater on Saturna Island, British Columbia, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 38: 1059-1080. Al lan , T. (1999) Productive Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency: Why Better Water Management May Not Solve the Problem, Agricultural Water Management, 40(1): 71-75. Bakker, K . (ed.) (2007), Eau Canada: The Future of Canada's Water. University of British Columbia Press, 417pp. Brandes, O. and D . Brooks (2005), The Soft Path for Water in a Nutshell, published by Friends of the Earth Canada, 12 pp. Brandes, O., T. Maas, and E . Reynolds (2006), Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps: Top 10 Ways Communities Can Save Water and Money, Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. Available online at: http://www.waterdsm.org/pdf/ThinkingBeyond_lowres.pdf Boyd, D . (2003), Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy, University of British Columba Press, 469 pp. Brehm, J. and T. Hamilton (1996), Noncompliance in Environmental Reporting: Are Violators Ignorant, or Evasive of the Law?, American Journal of Political science, 40(2): 444-477. Brick, P. (2001), Of Impostors, Optimists, and Kings: Finding a Political Niche for Collaborative Conservation, in Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West. Brick, P. D . Snow, and S. Van Der Wetering (eds.), Island Press, 268 pp. Bruggink, T . H . (1992), Third Party Effects of Groundwater Law in the United States: Private Versus Common Property, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 5(1): 1-17. Campbell, I. (2004), Toward Integrated Freshwater Policies for Canada's Future, in Horizons - Policy Research Initiative 6(4): 3-7. 102 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment ( C C M E ) (2002), Linking Water Science to Policy Workshops. Final Report: A n Overview and Lessons Learned, by Schaefer, K . A . and A . T . Bielak, Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series. Report No. 7. 22 p. Cohen, M . A . (1998), Monitoring and Enforcement of Environmental Policy, in T. Tietenberg and H , Former (Eds.) International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000: 44-106 Coggins, G . C (2001), Of Californicators, Quislings, and Crazies: Some Perils of Devolved Collaboration, in Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West, Brick, P. D. Snow, and S. Van Der Wetering (eds.), Island Press, 268 pp. Colebatch, H . K . (2006), Governing the Use of Water: the Institutional Context, in Desalination 1987: 17-27. Conference Board of Canada (2007), Navigating the Shoals: Assessing Water Governance and Management in Canada. Report produced by the Environment, Energy, and Transportation Area. Conglianese, C. and D . Lazer (2003), Management-Based Regulation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public Goals, in Law and Society Review, 37(4): 691-729. Dinar and Saleth (2005), Can Water Institutions be Cured? A Water Institutions Health Index, in Water, Science, and Technology: Water supply, 5(6): 17-40. Dunn, K . (2005), 'Doing' Qualitative Research in Human Geography, in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd edition, by Iain Hay (ed.), Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 468 pp: 79-105. Durant, R.F . , D.J . Fiorino, and R. O'Leary (Eds.) (2004), Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. M I T Press, 560 pp. Eisner, M . A . (2007), Governing the Environment: The Transformation of Environmental Regulation, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 322 pp. Fischer, F. (2000), Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: the Politics of Local Knowledge, Duke University Press, 336 pp. Flyvbjerg, B . (2006), Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research, Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2): 219-245. Fort, D . (1991), Federalism and the Prevention of Groundwater Contamination, Water Resources Research, 27(11): 2811-2817. 103 Gabriola Island Official Visitor Guide and Map (2006) Getches, D . H . (2001), Some Irreverent Questions about Watershed-Based Efforts, in Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West. Brick, P. D . Snow, and S. Van Der Wetering (eds.), Island Press, 268 pp: 180-188 Godfrey, L . (2007), Ecosystem Governance and the Trialogue Debate: An Overview of the Trialogue Relationship and the Engagement Along Interfaces, in Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. Turton et. al. (eds.), Springer, 354 pp. G u l f Islands Trust (2004), Rainwater Harvesting on the Gulf Islands: Frequently Asked Questions, available online at http://www.islandstrustfund.B.C..ca/projects/pdf/itfrainwaterfaq.pdf G u l f Islands Trust (2005), Residency of Property Owners (by Mailing Address) of Selected Islands in the Islands Trust Area, available online at http://www.islandstrast.B.C..ca/poifo^ Harrison, K . (1995), Is Cooperation the Answer? Canadian Environmental Enforcement in Comparative Context, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(2): 221-244. Harrison, K . (1996), Passing the Buck: Federalism and Canadian Environmental Policy University of British Columbia Press, 248 pp. Henderson, L . (2006), Leading Change Towards a Sustainable Water Future: A Community-Based Water Framework and Change Strategy for Bowen Island, British Columbia, a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master o f Arts in Environment and Management, Royal Roads University. Available online at: http://www.bimB.C..ca/news_notices?nnid-3 9#39 Heyes, A . (2000), Implementing Environmental Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 17(2): 107-129. Hilborn, R. (1987), Living with Uncertainty in Resource Management, North American Journal of Fisheries Management: 7(1): 1-5. H i l l , C . and K . Harrison (2006), Intergovernmental Regulation and Municipal Drinking Water, in Doern, G . B . and R. Johnson (Eds.), Rules. Rules. Rules. Rules: Multilevel Regulatory Government. University o f Toronto Press, pp.234-258. Hoberg, G . (2000), How the Way me Make Policy Governs the Policy we Make, in Sustaining the Forests of the Pacific Coast: Forging Truces in the War in the Woods, by D . Salazar and D . Alper (eds.), University of British Columbia Press, 256pp: 26-53. 104 Holzwarth, F. and J. Lundqvist (2002), Workshop 3 (systhesis): Catchment-based Governance - Compromise Building and Institutional Arrangements ", Water Science and Technology, 45(8): 145-147. Home, A . (1982), Groundwater Policy: A Patchwork of Protection, Environment, 24(3): 6-11. Howlett, M . and M . Ramesh (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 2 n d Edition, Oxford University Press, 310 pp. Institute on Governance (2003), Policy Brief No. 15: Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century by John Graham, Bruce Amos, and T im Plumptre. Jasanoff, S. (1994), The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers, Harvard University Press, 320 pp. Jordan, G . (2007), Policy Without Learning, Public Policy and Administration, 22(1): 48-73. Krajnc, A . (2000), Wither Ontario's Environment? Neo-Conservatism and the Decline of the Environment Ministry, Canadian Public Policy, 26(1): 111-127 Lee, E . and A . Pearl (Eds.) (2003), The Integrity Gap: Canada's environmental policy and institutions. University of British Columbia press, 288 pp. Matthews, C , R. Gibson, and B . Mitchell (2007), Rising Waves, Old Charts, Nervous Passengers: Navigating toward a New Water Ethic, in Eau Canada: The Future of Canada's Water, K . Bakker (ed.), University of British Columbia Press, 417pp: 335-358. Nanni, M . and S. Foster (2005), Groundwater Resources: Shaping Legislation in Harmony with Real Issues and Sound Concepts, Water Policy, 7(5) 543-550. Naysnerski, W . and T. Tietenberg (1992), Private Enforcement of Federal Environmental Law, Land Economics, 69(1): 28-48. Newton, A . , Statistical Summary of Gulf Islands Profdes, available online at http://www.islandstmst.bc.ca/poi/pdf/itpoifommstatssummarygulfislands.pdf Norman, E.S. and J.O. Melious (2004), Transboundary Environmental Management: A Study of the Abbotsford- Sumas Aquifer in British Columbia and Western Washington, Journal of Borderland Studies, 19(2): 101-119. Nowlan, L . (2005), Buried Treasure: Groundwater Permitting and Pricing in Canada, written for the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, 104pp. 105 Nowlan, L . (2007), Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Taking Canada's Groundwater for Granted, in Eau Canada: The Future of Canada's Water, K . Bakker (ed.), University of British Columbia Press, 417pp: 55-84. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, by Vergez, C . and J. Caddy, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 267 pp. Postel, S. (1992), Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity, World Watch Institute, 239pp. Puci, A . (1994), Cooperative Groundwater Resources Management: Local Perspective, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 120(6):984-991. Reinder H . Boekelman, Gualbert H.P. Oude Essink, Jiangong Wang, Mingchuan J i , Deyin X i , and Zuosheng Yang (1994), Salt-Water Intrusion into Groundwater Systems, pp.101-130, in Groundwater Contamination and Control, U . Zoller (ed.) Marcel Dekker, Inc., 712 pp. Rhodes, R . A . W . (1996), The New Governance: Governing Without Government, Political Studies, 44: 652-657 Rivera, A . (2005), How well do we understand Groundwater in Canada? A Science Case Study, Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Groundwater Program. Sabatier, P., W . Focht, M . Lubell, Z . Trachtenberg, A . Vedlitz, and M . Matlock (eds.) (2005), Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management, M I T Press, 327pp. San Juan County Parks (2004), Parks, Recreation, and Preserved Lands Plan, available online at http://www.co.san-iuan.wa.us/Parks/P&R%20Plan%20Section%20III.pdf Schaefer, K . A . and A . T . Bielak (2006), Linking Water Science to Policy: Results from a Series of National Workshops on Water, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113(1-3): 431-442. Scott, J .C. (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, 445 pp. Singleton, S. (2000), Cooperation or Capture? The Paradox of Comanagement and Community Participation in Natural Resource Management and Environmental Policy Making, Environmental Politics, 9(2): 1-12. Singleton, S. (2002), Collaborative Environmental Planning in the American West: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Environmental Politics, 11(3): 54-75. 106 Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (2005), Water in the West: Under Pressure. Steel, B . , P. List, D . Lach, and B . Schindler (2004), The Role of Scientists in the Environmental Policy Process: A Case Study from the American West, Environmental Science & Policy, 7(1): 1-13. Swyngedouw, E . (1997), Neither Global nor Local: "Glocalization " and the Politics of Scale, in Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local by K . R . Cox (ed.), The Guilford Press, 292pp: 137-167. Turton et. al. (eds.), (2007), Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Science-Society in Transition. Springer, 354 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U S E P A ) (1998). Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.htm U S G S (US Geological Survey) (2000), Is Seawater Intrusion Affecting Ground Water on Lopez Island. Washington? V a n Steenbergen, F. (2006), Promoting Local Management in Groundwater, Hydrogeology Journal, 14: 380-391. Wei , M . and D . Al l en (2004), Groundwater Management in B.C., Canada: Challenges in a Regulatory Vacuum, o f Managing Common Pool Groundwater Resources, Praeger Publishers, U S , 327pp.: 7-31. Y i n (2002), Case Study Research. Sage Publications, 3 r d Edition, 200pp. 107 5.2 Legislative Sources British Columbia Application for Subdivision Approval Regulation, B . C . Reg. 8/89. Capital Regional District, By-law No. 2990, Building Regulation By-law, 31 M a y 2005 Drinking Water Protection Act, R .S .B .C . 2001, c.9, s. 1. Groundwater Protection Regulation, B . C . Reg. 299/204. Gabriola Island Official Community Plan 5y/f lwNo. 166 (1997) Gabriola Island Water Sales Bylaw No . 233 Islands Trust Council Policy Statement Amendment Bylaw No . 87 (2002) Islands Trust Council Policy Statement Amendment No. 1, s.4.4.1 (2002) Local Government Act, R .S .B .C . 1996, c. 323, s. 903 . North Pender Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No . 83 (1993) Reviewable Projects Regulation, B . C . Reg. 270/2002, s. 11 (4). Salt Spring Island Land Use Bylaw No . 355 (March 2001) South Pender Land Use Bylaw No 92 (2003) Utilities Commission Act, R .S .B .C . 1996, c473. Water Act, R .S .B .C . 1996, c483, s. 5, 78(2) Water Utility Act, R .S .B .C . 1996, c 485, s. 5 Washington Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S .C . 1251 (2002). Groundwater Code, R . C . W . tit.90 § 44.050 (1945). Growth Management Act, R . C . W . tit. 36 § 70 (1990). 108 San Juan County Code, chapter 8.06: Rules and Regulations of the San Juan County-Health Board Regarding Water Wells and Water Systems (adopted 1996, amended 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,2004). Washington Building Permit Application, R . C . W . tit. 19 § 27.097 (1995). Water Rights Code, W . A . C . tit. 173 § 152 (1917). Water Well Construction Act, R . C . W . tit. 18 § 104 (1971). 5.3 Internet Sources British Columbia Ministry of Transportation Permits and Approvals website: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/DA/L3_eval_health_safetv.asp#Water%20Supply Canadian Water Network: www.cwn.org Environmental Commissioner of Ontario website: http://www.eco.on.ca/ Environment Canada Weather Office website: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca G u l f Islands Trust website: http ://www.islandstrust.bc. ca/index. cfm Hornby Island Water Site: www.hornbvisle.ca/water.htm National Water Research Institute www.nwri.ca Olga Weather Station online: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl7waolga San Juan Island Chamber of Commerce website: http://wv^.saniuanisland.org/demographics.html Salt Spring Island Chamber of Commerce online www.Salt Springisland.com Township of Langley Water Management Plan website: http://www.tol.bc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1078&Itemid=916 U N D P Water Website: http://www.undp.org/water/about_us.html Vancouver Island Health Authority website: http://www.viha.ca/mho/environment/water_quality/drinking_water.htm 109 A P P E N D I X 3: S A M P L E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E The following is a sample of the questionnaire that was used to guide interviews that took place in June 2006. This is the version that was used for decision-makers and local experts. In addition to the questionnaires, participants were asked to do a mapping exercise; they were provided with a blank map of the island and were asked to identify water 'hot spots' with colour-coded pens. 1) After hearing the project description, is anything immediate that you would like to add? 2) What is your job title? 3) What do you do? 4) H o w long have you been working in this position? 5) Have you ever worked in another related position? Tell me a bit about that. 6) What do you see as the most pressing water-related issues on the island, in terms o f both quality and quantity? 7) What ( i f any) do you feel are the main groundwater issues on Island X ? For example, water shortages, land use planning and septic waste, saltwater intrusion... 8) For policy experts (i.e. State/Provincial official): What are the major pieces of legislation governing groundwater quantity/quality? Has that evolved over time? 9) Do you test wells regularly? If so, what have been the recent test readings (specifically: septic waste, chemical pathogens i.e. arsenic and microbiological contaminants). 10) How are septic systems managed? Who decides where they can be located? 11) Are you familiar with the main groundwater provisions in the provincial Water Act and the Ground Water Protection Regulation under that Act? 12) There are a number of new regulations under the 2004 Ground Water protection regulation, for example, that that anyone who constructs a well to meet certain qualification requirements and be registered, or that the G W P R requires every well to be capped and all new wells to have a surface seal, or that all unused wells must be properly filled and closed within specified time periods. In what ways do you think that do these regulations help us to deal with the groundwater issue? 112 13) Can you give me any specifics as to why you think these regulations might succeed or fail? 14) Is there anything that you would like to change about the provincial requirements? For example... a. Groundwater licensing similar to surface water licensing? b. Requiring a permit before a well can be drilled or altered (drilling authorizations)? c. Developing legally binding water management plans? d. Establishing requirements for groundwater quality testing and reporting, e. Establishing any other standards or requirements? 15) [For each one]: Do you think that something like that might work here, or do you think there would be resistance to that? Why? 16) Is there anything you would like to change about the provincial non-regulatory programs? For example: a. Establishing additional monitoring wells? b. Analyzing monitoring well water samples for particular substances? c. Doing more studies? (If so, on what?) 17) What challenges, i f any, do you foresee to the implementation of that suggestion? 18) I 'd like to get a sense of what you think of some of the regulations in Washington: a. Extraction limits; b. Stricter regulations with respect to land use planning and septic waste; c. Changes in drinking water quality standards 19) [For each one]: Do you think that something like that might work here, or do you think there would be resistance to that? Why? 20) In general, who do you think the 'winners' and 'losers' o f the current regulation are? Are these strong regulations a good thing? 21) What do you think that members of [government, planners, N G O s , well drillers, members of the agricultural community, tourism-based industry] should do to protect groundwater security in terms of both adequacy of supply and quality? 22) A s an individual, what would you be prepared to do to protect groundwater quality and quantity? 23) Is there anything I haven't given you the opportunity to say that you feel you'd like to add? 113 APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS TABLE 9: PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTIONS (ANONYMOUS) P a r t i c i p a n t Code J o b 1 Expert, B . C . 2 Expert, W A 3 Agriculture, W A 4 Expert, B . C . 5 Water Provider, W A 6 Government, W A 7 Water Provider, B . C . 8 Water Manager, B . C . 9 Government, B . C . 10 Expert, B . C . 11 Government, W A 12 Government, B . C . 13 Government, B . C . 14 N G O , W A 15 Water Manager, W A 16 Expert, W A 17 Government, W A 18 Government, B . C . 19 Government, B . C . 20 Government, B . C . 21 N G O , B . C . 22 Agriculture, B . C . 23 N G O , B . C . 24 Tourism, W A 25 Expert, B . C . 26 Government, B . C . 27 Water Provider, W A 28 Government, B . C . 29 N G O , W A 30 Water Provider, W A 31 Agriculture, B . C . 32 N G O , B . C . 33 Consultant, W A 34 Consultant, W A 35 Tourism, W A 36 Agriculture, W A 37 Expert, W A 38 Water Provider, B . C . 39 Water Manager, W A 40 Water Manager, B . C . 114 APPENDIX 5; EFFECTS OF METERING ON WATER CONSUMPTION The graph below appeared in a 2004 edition of Horizons, the journal of the Government of Canada's Policy Research Initiative. Per Capita Water Use by Percent Metered Population (1998) MJ&L _YT fUm 700 • tm i 580 . 400 • 300 • Q C O N NS too Source: Campbell 2004:5, with permission The graph was accompanied by the following text: M ^ _ _ __ MB N T & N U * 20 +0 M 80 tOO p o t e n t n w r e d "Per capita water use in Canadian provinces and territories may be heavily influenced by the use of water meters. The sample regression line suggests a 233 litres per person per day reduction in water use - a 50% reduction - when the water supply is metered." (Campbell 2004: 5) 115 A P P E N D I X 6: M A Y 1 5 T H W O R K S H O P R E P O R T G r o u n d w a t e r G o v e r n a n c e on the G u l f a n d San J u a n Is lands W o r k s h o p R e p o r t University of British Columbia M a y 15 t h, 2007 5 4 1. B a c k g r o u n d The workshop on groundwater governance in the Canadian G u l f and U S San Juan Islands grew out of research carried out in June 2006 by Al ice Cohen, and convened groundwater regulators and managers from both sides of the border, many of whom were interview participants in June 2006. The workshop was held M a y 15 , 2007 at U . B . C . It had three purposes: 1) To create an opportunity for groundwater regulators and managers from either side of the border to network and to engage in discussion about groundwater governance; 2) to give participants insight into the realities of groundwater governance on the islands; and 3) to contribute to Alice Cohen's M . A . thesis. The purpose of this report is to summarize key discussions that took place at the workshop. The agenda for the day and a list of participants are attached as appendices. 2. W o r k s h o p Presentat ions a n d Discussions Groundwater Governance in the Gulf and San Juan Islands: Alice Cohen's Presentation Alice Cohen discussed the research she carried out in the G u l f and San Juan islands in June 2006, summarized in the report: Cohen A . (with K . Bakker) (2006) Groundwater Management on the G u l f and San Juan Islands: Results from Research Conducted June 2006, available at http://www.geog.uB.C..ca/%7Ebakker/Publications/index.htm . This paper was provided to all the workshop participants. She concluded with the hypothesis that: the written regulations appear to be of equal or less significance than the physical characteristics, economic priorities, and community values around groundwater in determining on-the-ground management of the resource. Questions included concerns about sewage disposal, the reduction of A L R (agricultural land reserve) land, metering requirements, bulk water hauling, climate change, and Author: Alice Cohen, M . A . Student, Resource Management and Environmental Studies, U B . C , Principal Investigator: Karen Bakker, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, U B . C , Additional Assistance: Linda Nowlan, Faculty Research Associate, Program on Water Governance, UB.C. 116 attitudes towards government. Participants also expressed surprise that there were so many similarities on either side the border. Morning Theme: Community Planning and Groundwater Speakers: Sonia Talwar of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Jacque Klug of the Washington State Department of Ecology. Sonia Talwar spoke about the work N R C a n is doing to bridge groundwater science with community planning on the Gul f Islands. N R C a n is developing aquifer vulnerability and recharge models for some of the islands that can predict the impact of certain land use activities on island aquifers. One purpose of the model is to make explicit some of the tradeoffs so that decision-makers understand the consequences of their decisions on the aquifers, and they can then explain these to constituents. Jacque K l u g spoke about land use and community planning regulations in Washington State, and in San Juan County. The Washington State Department of Ecology has authority for groundwater use and water rights are required for withdrawals of over 5,000 U S gallons per day. The State stopped processing water rights for ten years due to staffing cutbacks. A 2002 court decision determined that local government has a responsibility to protect aquifers, but there are challenges in meeting this requirement at the local level due to lack of resources. In 1998 the State adopted the Watershed Planning Act , which allows counties create watershed plans and offers financial resources (up to $5,000 US) to establish the plans. Under this program, San Juan County has developed a plan that is currently in its implementation stage. Small Group Discussion: Community Planning and Groundwater Group 1 Questions: What factors go into decision-making with respect to community and land use planning? What are some examples of these factors, and how do they differ from island to island? How are they different on each side of the B.C-Washington Border? On the B . C . side these factors included subdivision regulations, land use zoning, building codes, Official Community Plans, building permits, Agricultural Land Reserve, and Crown land use. Washington participants noted that land use decisions are often based on existing land use patterns, and are made within the framework established by the state. On both sides of the border, participants identified economics as a driver of increased growth and suggested that land use decision making was often driven by the most vocal parties. Group 2 Questions: How might community and land use regulations change to improve groundwater? Who needs to be involved? What are some success stories? What challenges lie ahead? Hydrofracturing - the practice of forcing high-pressure air or water down wells to open existing rock fissures and create new ones - was raised as a concern and some suggested that it should be either regulated or banned. The group also 117 suggested amending the B . C . Local Government Act to provide a clear mandate on groundwater protection. Mayne Island was identified as a 'success story' - they have hosted many high-turnout groundwater workshops and have created partnerships with federal and provincial government representatives. Challenges that lie ahead include resources for enforcement and the high cost of monitoring. Group 3 Questions: How do land use planning regulations affect groundwater management? What are some local examples? The group reported that their discussion reflected Alice ' s findings that factors other than regulation impact on-the-ground management and that there were local solutions that could be housed within broader frameworks. The Washington 5,000 U.S. gallon exemption for obtaining a permit was described as a loophole that needs to be addressed. Participants noted that neither side of the border had a framework for managing the extraction of groundwater. Both sides had regional growth strategies specifying where higher density growth should occur and suggested that septic fields should be monitored on an ongoing basis. The group concluded that more 'teeth' are needed at the local level to formalize existing local practices. Afternoon Theme: Drinking Water Protection Speakers: Steve Deem of the Washington State Department of Health, V i c k i Heater from the Washington County Health Department, and Pat Lapcevic from the B . C . Ministry o f Environment. Steve Deem's presentation focused on the Group A water systems (15 connections or 25 people or more). O f the 88 Group A systems in Washington, 11 are surface water systems and 7 are desalination systems. There are 340 Group B systems, and more than 15 000 individual wells. Monitoring of the Group A systems is driven by the health code. Wel l construction standards are set by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and enforced by the Washington State Department of Health. V i c k i Heater from the San Juan County Health Department spoke about drinking water protection. The County has moved away from using chloride as an indicator of saltwater intrusion because it can sometimes give false positives, triggering unnecessary assessments. The County has been collecting well log data, which suggests that approximate 5-6% of total rainfall recharges on the islands. This is significant because the rate is dramatically lower than other nearby Counties, so what works for other parts o f the State might not be applicable to San Juan County. Pat Lapcevic of the B . C . Ministry of Environment spoke about protecting individual wells, wellheads, and aquifers. Relevant legislation in B . C . includes: the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Water Act , the Environmental Management Act (contaminated sites), the Health Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and the Water Utili ty Act. In 2003, the Province introduced the Drinking Water Protection Act, and Groundwater Protection Regulations were introduced in 2004. Phase one of these regulations addresses the registration of pump installers and well drillers, and sets standards for well construction. Phase two is currently awaiting approval and phase three wi l l focus on water 118 management plans. There is a trial water management plan underway in Langley. Most of the Gul f Islands have one or two Provincial observation wells, and the trend is that the aquifers recharge in the winter but are being increasingly depleted in the summer months. Questions following the presentation clarified these topics • Regulations on desalination plants are more extensive in Washington; • Both jurisdictions face resource constraints in managing water; • The B . C . G u l f Islands include some of the 20-25 high priority aquifers identified by the province; • The B . C . Drinking Water Protection Act does not apply to individual water supply systems. Small Group Discussion: Drinking Water Protection Group 1 Questions: What are the drinking water challenges specific to small systems the islands? How might these be overcome? Challenges include: lack of access to government resources, the public perception that water should be free, the operating costs o f small systems (for example, the cost of monitoring and audits), heavy reliance on volunteers, lack of capacity to replace aging infrastructure, lack of capacity to meet build out, lack of capacity to meet increasingly stringent regulations, and challenges posed by a high degree of resident seasonality. Group 2 Questions: What are the drinking water challenges specific to small systems the islands? How might these be overcome? The second group addressed the same question and identified the following challenges to small systems: lack of metering, lack of monitoring, lack o f operating knowledge, lack of mapping, and financial issues stemming from lack of access to public grant money and loans for upgrading systems. Group 3 Questions: What are other sources of water available to augment supplies? Are any of these other sources currently being used? What are opportunities and barriers to increase water from other sources? Alternative water sources include: rainfall harvesting and storage, desalination, pipeline from off-island, bulk water hauling, on-island bulk water storage, storm water management, matching end use of water with quality, and grey water reuse. A l l of these sources are currently being used, with the exception of pipelines. 3. Discussion and Conclusion The workshop was successful in creating an opportunity for island water regulators and managers to meet face to face to discuss shared concerns and innovative solutions; and to get an ' i n depth' view of groundwater governance issues at a local scale. Concerns shared by participants on both sides of the border included rapid development, saltwater intrusion, climate change, fractured regulatory networks, and regulations that were seen as inappropriate to the islands' setting. 119 D i s c u s s i o n about solutions focused o n two areas: concrete action such as the p r o m o t i o n o f rainwater harvesting and changes i n p u m p testing, and regulatory change such as San Juan C o u n t y ' s w o r k to a l l o w rainwater harvesting without the need to obtain a surface water right, and the possible i n c l u s i o n o f the G u l f Islands as a water management p l a n n i n g area. Participants were also asked to comment on A l i c e C o h e n ' s hypothesis that writ ten regulations appear to be o f equal or less s ignif icance than the phys ica l characteristics, e c o n o m i c priorit ies, and c o m m u n i t y values around groundwater i n determining on-the-ground management o f the resource S o m e participants agreed that loca l solutions, such as c o m m u n i t y monitor ing , can be part o f broader regulatory frameworks. O n e participant noted that the thesis assumed that there were lots o f regulations i n W a s h i n g t o n , when i n fact the regulations o n l y apply to shared wel ls : private w e l l s are essentially unregulated. T h e workshop discussions w i l l not change the hypothesis o f the research, but w i l l dr ive a deeper explorat ion o f relevant leg is lat ion and w i l l add W a s h i n g t o n ' s unregulated s ingle-f a m i l y h o m e wel ls to the evidence. Acknowledgements: T h i s research was made possible through a f inancial contr ibut ion the U B . C . H S S S m a l l Grants Program, the B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f the E n v i r o n m e n t , and the A n d r e w R . T h o m p s o n Natura l Resources L a w P r o g r a m , U B C . F u n d i n g for the workshop was p r o v i d e d b y the R e a l Estate Foundat ion o f B . C . , W a l t e r and D u n c a n G o r d o n Foundat ion, the B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f the E n v i r o n m e n t , and N a t u r a l Resources Canada. 120 4. Appendices APPENDIX A : PARTICIPANTS Karen Bakker - Program on Water Governance, U B . C . Oliver Brandes - POLIS Project, University of Victoria Sandra Brown - Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, U B . C . Mary Cooper - Mayne Island Al len Daiken - Hornby Island Steve Deem - Washington State Department of Health Nga de la Cruz - Alberta Ministry of Environment Patrick Forest - PhD student, Laval University Sue Gordon - Alberta Research Council Don Harrison - North Pender Island Murray Journeay - Natural Resources Canada Sylvia Kenny - B . C . Ministry of Environment Joanna K i d d - Facilitator Jackie K l u g - Washington State Department of Ecology Pat Lapcevic - B . C . Ministry of Environment Brenda Lucas - Gordon Foundation Gevan Mattu - Environment Canada Jenny M c L e o d - Gabriola Island Linda Nowlan - Program on Water Governance, U . B . C . Murray Reiss - Georgia Strait Alliance and Salt Spring Island Water Council Alfonso Rivera - Natural Resources Canada Scott Rozenbaum - Lopez Island Susan Rutherford - West Coast Environmental Law Gi l l ian Saxby - Islands Trust Hans Schreier - Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, U B . C . Sonia Talwar - Natural Resource Canada M i k e Wei - B . C . Ministry of Environment Judy Wilson - Environmental studies student 121 A P P E N D I X B: A G E N D A UB.C. Program on Water Governance and Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation Groundwater Governance on the Gulf and San Juan Islands UB.C. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, May 15,2007 9:00 Welcome and Purpose of the Workshop A l i ce Cohen 9:15 Role of the Facilitator, Agenda and Introductions Joanna K i d d 9:30 Overview: Summary of Research Results A l i ce Cohen This short presentation w i l l summarize the results of research conducted in June 2006 9:45 Coffee 10:00 Morning Panel: Community Planning and Groundwater What are the relevant land use and planning regulations in each jurisdiction? How does their implementation impact on groundwater? How might the regulations be better for groundwater? What are some success stories? What challenges lie ahead? Speakers to be confirmed. 11:00 Breakout Session: Community Planning and Groundwater 11:30 Reports Back from Breakout Groups 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Afternoon Panel: Drinking Water Protection What are the relevant drinking water regulations in each jurisdiction? What are the drinking water challenges specific to the islands? How might these be overcome? Speakers to be confirmed. 2:00 Breakout Session 2:30 Coffee 2:45 Reports Back from Breakout Groups 122 3:15 W r a p U p 3:45 Adjournment Al i ce Cohen 123 Page 1 of 1 The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services Behavioural ROS&arct) Etttte& Board M e 102. 6150 Agronomy Road, Vancouvoj, B.C. I/6T 1Z3 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL- MINIMAL RISK RENEWAL PRIMClPAL INVESTIGATOR: bEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER: Jcanen Batter lIBD'Arts/Geography HOS-&0274 IN3TfTUT10N(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT; I iwriHutiort I SJte UBC Point Grey SHe Dmcrtacallon* wtictif the research will be conducted: N.'A CO>INVESTK5ATOR(S|: Alice Cohen SPONSORING AGENCIES: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks - "TransbDumlary Groundwater Management in the Gulf and San Juan IslanrJs* UBC Hampton Research Endowment Fund »Transbounciary Groundwater Management in the Gulf and San Juan Islands" PROJECT TITLE: Transooundary Groundwater Management in the Gulf and San Juan Islands EXPIRY DATE OF THIS APPROVAL: April 30. 200B APPROVAL DATE: April 30, 2007 The Annual Renewal for Study nave been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical yisunds lor research involving human subjects. Awsixjyal i* i**ued on befnn of the anwyfciuriil R*»«*reh E(hic» Board »ntf signed electronic**!* by one of the Allowing; " Dr. Peter suedfeld, Chair Dr. Jim Rupert, Associate Chair nr. Armlnee KszanJIan, Associate CTalr Dr. M. .luililli t.yiwtin. Associate Chair Dr. I.imiic Furd, A»>BCi*lc Ghiiir blips ;.'.'Vi sc,ubi:.oa,Vi se/Ow^THHTT9T>f)8 014P77HFQrO"RSFKA«.''fnimSuriDg.iltinl 4730.'20U7 126 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100709/manifest

Comment

Related Items