(BY HUGO)
The Pembina Institute has published a report authored by Karen Campbell and Matt Horne, and titled: Shale Gas in British Columbia: Risks to B.C.’s water resources.
The report, which refers to developments in Québec on a number of issues, makes a series of recommendations that can be summarized as follows:
1. Integrate water withdrawals for energy production in basin plans that include all other uses;
2. Provide timely, regularly updated and easily accessed public information on all water allocations, actual water withdrawals under permits, licences or other means, actual water uses and flowback water;
3. Require water licences for all ground water withdrawals;
4. Place licensing powers and oversight for all water takings within a single B.C. ministry;
5. Require companies to publicly disclose chemicals and additives used in hydraulic fracturing;
6. Undertake an independent audit of oil and gas water use in B.C. to assess the accuracy of company reporting;
7. Undertake improved public mapping of groundwater to allow for informed environmental assessment of oil and gas exploration and production;
8. Ensure transparent and comprehensive compliance and enforcement including automatic prosecution for serious overdue deficiencies;
9. Review and strengthen requirements for drilling, hydraulic fracturing and water storage and disposal as well as the liability of producers in case of contamination.
Showing posts with label Groundwater. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Groundwater. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
CWRJ Issue on the Hydrogeology of the Châteauguay River Watershed
(BY HUGO)
The Canadian Water Resources Journal has published a special issue on the Hydrogeology of the transboundary Châteauguay River Watershed (2543 km2, 57% in Québec and 43% in New York - 100 000 (or 250 000 depending on the text in the issue) inhabitants on the Canadian side with 20 000 domestic wells, overall dependant on groundwater for 67% of total water use). This is a mostly unconfined or semi-confined aquifer system with northwards groundwater flows that discharge in the St-Lawrence River (see Lavigne, Natsev and Lefebvre, Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Châteauguay River Aquifers, p.469 & ff.), making the U.S.A. portion of the aquifer system part of an international watercourse as defined by article 2 of the 1997 UN Convention on non-navigational water uses.
The CWRJ special issue presents the principal results of a large scale project conducted from 2003 to 2007 by a variety of participants on both sides of the border. This is only the 3rd aquifer system mapped in details in Québec. However, it is reported that the success of this project has led to the launch of the current provincial groundwater mapping programme under which five major studies (in la Mauricie, Centre-du-Québec, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Montérégie-Est) are expected to be completed in 2013.
In addition to the wealth of hard scientific information on the Châteauguay watershed, the special issue includes an article exploring groundwater allocation on the Québec side of the watershed from a social science perspective: Marie-Pierre Dagenais, Analyse Sociologique de l'Allocation de l'Eau Souterraine: L'Exemple de Franklin, Québec, p.543 & ff (in French). The events studied by Dagenais' article relate to commercial bottling projects on a municipal territory in an agricultural zone.
The article shows that municipal residents mobilised together with farmers against the bottling projects due to the possibility of water shortage resulting from increased withdrawal. Lack of reliable information and institutional capacity played a significant part in the escalation of the social conflict from the civil society's perspective. At the same time appeared an asymmetrical relationship where administrative authorities at provincial level favoured direct, bilateral and private information sharing with the bottling project promoters to the exclusion of other stakeholders. It seems that the opacity of the institutions for groundwater allocation, as well as the fragmented skein of applicable laws and regulations played a part in the development of the conflict resulting from the bottling projects (the tail end of the ensuing judicial saga was discussed in an older post).
The Canadian Water Resources Journal has published a special issue on the Hydrogeology of the transboundary Châteauguay River Watershed (2543 km2, 57% in Québec and 43% in New York - 100 000 (or 250 000 depending on the text in the issue) inhabitants on the Canadian side with 20 000 domestic wells, overall dependant on groundwater for 67% of total water use). This is a mostly unconfined or semi-confined aquifer system with northwards groundwater flows that discharge in the St-Lawrence River (see Lavigne, Natsev and Lefebvre, Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Châteauguay River Aquifers, p.469 & ff.), making the U.S.A. portion of the aquifer system part of an international watercourse as defined by article 2 of the 1997 UN Convention on non-navigational water uses.
The CWRJ special issue presents the principal results of a large scale project conducted from 2003 to 2007 by a variety of participants on both sides of the border. This is only the 3rd aquifer system mapped in details in Québec. However, it is reported that the success of this project has led to the launch of the current provincial groundwater mapping programme under which five major studies (in la Mauricie, Centre-du-Québec, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Montérégie-Est) are expected to be completed in 2013.
In addition to the wealth of hard scientific information on the Châteauguay watershed, the special issue includes an article exploring groundwater allocation on the Québec side of the watershed from a social science perspective: Marie-Pierre Dagenais, Analyse Sociologique de l'Allocation de l'Eau Souterraine: L'Exemple de Franklin, Québec, p.543 & ff (in French). The events studied by Dagenais' article relate to commercial bottling projects on a municipal territory in an agricultural zone.
The article shows that municipal residents mobilised together with farmers against the bottling projects due to the possibility of water shortage resulting from increased withdrawal. Lack of reliable information and institutional capacity played a significant part in the escalation of the social conflict from the civil society's perspective. At the same time appeared an asymmetrical relationship where administrative authorities at provincial level favoured direct, bilateral and private information sharing with the bottling project promoters to the exclusion of other stakeholders. It seems that the opacity of the institutions for groundwater allocation, as well as the fragmented skein of applicable laws and regulations played a part in the development of the conflict resulting from the bottling projects (the tail end of the ensuing judicial saga was discussed in an older post).
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Deluge of reports on water management issues in Canada
(BY HUGO)
Three significant reports have been published last week on water management issues in Canada.
Firstly, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy released «Changing Currents: Water Sustainability and the Future of Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors» (NRTEE Report). The NRTEE Report is one of the outputs of a two year research program designed to address the following questions: With development of the natural resource sectors on the rise, does Canada have enough water to support economic growth while maintaining the health of the country’s ecosystems? And is Canada in a position to sustainably manage its water resources for future generations?
The NRTEE Report aims at giving an overview of water resources status in Canada as well as identifying the key water issues for natural resources exploitation. The Report identifies four water sustainability issues of national importance: 1) water governance and management; 2) the impact of climate change; 3) the water-energy nexus; 4) public participation.
The NRTEE Report recognises that watersheds deliver ecosystem services to society that, when valued economically, often far exceed the value of water allocated for direct anthropogenic uses. Conventional financial markets do not capture the value of ecosystem services, yet the value provided to society by freshwater cannot be underestimated. In regions where ecosystems are severely degraded, the economic costs associated with lost ecosystem services and efforts to restore them are considerable and can far outweigh benefits of other water uses. The Report then determines that the attempts to value ecosystem benefits are generally at the experimental stage and necessarily imperfect and site-specific. Although this is not stated in the Report, these considerations could be argued to favour prevention and precaution in approaching any projects altering water resources status.
With respect to water governance and management, the NRTEE Report finds that water policies and regulations in Canada are burdensome and complex due to the jurisdictional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments and due to the fact that provinces also delegate some of their authority to municipalities. The Report recognises that water management in Canada has traditionally been achieved through regulatory and legislative tools, but a move toward a broader suite of policy tools for water management is needed in order to enable a more flexible and adaptive policy approach acknowledging regional and local particularities. The fragmentation of water management will require collaborative water governance models which will succeed only if a number of conditions are met:
«• they focus on a clear scope and clear outcomes;
• the right people are brought together, with the right convener;
• participants agree to fully get engaged and there is real commitment to the process;
• clear roles are identified for participants;
• the processes foster shared ownership and accountability; and
• an ongoing dialogue is built.»
Finally, the NRTEE Report stresses in various occasions the importance of alternatives to regulation for water management. The potential of markets appears to attract most of the interest in this respect. This is a notable confusion in an otherwise impressively researched and balanced report. Indeed, markets exist only through regulation. Property rights that are generally considered the essential building blocks of markets have often materialised through expansive frameworks constituting the foundations of legal regimes in Western jurisdictions. In other words, markets cannot be presented as an alternative to regulatory approaches, their very existence depends on regulation.
Secondly, the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Science Advisory Board released «Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin» (IJC Report). The IJC Report is a fantastic source of data regarding groundwater in the Great Lakes basin. It conveys the enormous importance of groundwater to the Great Lakes Basin:
«It is estimated that there is as much groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin as there is surface water in Lake Michigan. The groundwater contribution to the Great Lakes tributaries ranges from 48% in the Lake Erie basin to 79% in the Lake Michigan basin. Groundwater maintains stream flows and wetlands during dry periods, supporting significant ecosystem functions. Groundwater is an important source of drinking water in the Great Lakes Basin. 8.2 million people, 82% of the rural population, rely on groundwater for their drinking water. Groundwater also provides 43% of agricultural water and 14% (and increasing) of industrial water in the basin.» (p.1)
The IJC Report consists in a short summary of findings and recommendations complemented by a series of 13 appendices on the most pressing issues regarding groundwater, ranging from the impact of chemical contaminants and pathogens to conveyance losses and applicable laws. Among the many points made in the Report are the following:
- the Great Lakes cannot be protected without protecting the groundwater resources in the basin, both at the quantitative and qualitative levels.
- with respect to volumes, even relatively small groundwater withdrawals have important repercussions. For example, withdrawals in the Chicago area shift the Great Lakes drainage divide as groundwater pumped from the basin is released in the Mississippi watershed after usage.
- with respect to quality, fecal pollution and microbial contamination is one of the most frequently identified threats to Great Lakes groundwaters. Pathogens enter the basin ecosystem from sludge, manure and biosolids land spreading, leaking sewer infrastructure and on-site waste water systems, landfills, cemeteries, injection wells, and waste and stormwater lagoons, all of which can impact groundwater quality.
- An impressive 440 273 229 m³/year of water is lost underground every year in conveyance through outdated and broken sewers and main water lines, notably resulting in severe groundwater contamination. This corresponds to economic losses amounting to US $218 306 566 per year. Montréal loses approximately 40% of its total produced water output, which equals 119 858 800 m³ per year at a cost of approximately $ 44 347 756.
Thirdly, the Fraser Institute has released a new report, «Making Waves: Examining the Case for Sustainable Water Exports from Canada» (Fraser Report). The Fraser Institute emulates the right-wing Montréal Economic Institute and argues in favour of water exports. The Fraser Report posits that Canada has so much water that it can be exported. It considers that unallocated environmental water is lost because it is left unused (p.35). Also, water should notably be explored based on the fact that «History is replete with examples of the superiority of trade to optimize resource allocation. Indeed, market pricing is the most powerful means of equalizing demand and supply.» (p.12; see also 36-37)
The central assertions to the Fraser Report are of dubious value. With respect to the over-abundance of water in Canada, both the NRTEE and IJC Reports reflect the fact that there is a looming water crisis in Canada. With respect to the water supposedly lost because left unused in the environment, the Fraser Report contradicts a very strong consensus in the scientific community to the effect that all characteristics of natural hydrological regimes are essential to preserve freshwater ecosystems (the natural flow paradigm). There is no such thing as lost or excess water. The myth of market efficiency is also easily dispelled following the reasoning of Ronald Coase: in situations of imperfect information, as is obviously the case with respect to water resources in Canada, markets fail.
It is interesting to see that Circle of Blue has decided to give air time to the Fraser Report rather than to the other two reports. This is the type of choice in news coverage that sets the terms for public and political debate.
Three significant reports have been published last week on water management issues in Canada.
Firstly, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy released «Changing Currents: Water Sustainability and the Future of Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors» (NRTEE Report). The NRTEE Report is one of the outputs of a two year research program designed to address the following questions: With development of the natural resource sectors on the rise, does Canada have enough water to support economic growth while maintaining the health of the country’s ecosystems? And is Canada in a position to sustainably manage its water resources for future generations?
The NRTEE Report aims at giving an overview of water resources status in Canada as well as identifying the key water issues for natural resources exploitation. The Report identifies four water sustainability issues of national importance: 1) water governance and management; 2) the impact of climate change; 3) the water-energy nexus; 4) public participation.
The NRTEE Report recognises that watersheds deliver ecosystem services to society that, when valued economically, often far exceed the value of water allocated for direct anthropogenic uses. Conventional financial markets do not capture the value of ecosystem services, yet the value provided to society by freshwater cannot be underestimated. In regions where ecosystems are severely degraded, the economic costs associated with lost ecosystem services and efforts to restore them are considerable and can far outweigh benefits of other water uses. The Report then determines that the attempts to value ecosystem benefits are generally at the experimental stage and necessarily imperfect and site-specific. Although this is not stated in the Report, these considerations could be argued to favour prevention and precaution in approaching any projects altering water resources status.
With respect to water governance and management, the NRTEE Report finds that water policies and regulations in Canada are burdensome and complex due to the jurisdictional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments and due to the fact that provinces also delegate some of their authority to municipalities. The Report recognises that water management in Canada has traditionally been achieved through regulatory and legislative tools, but a move toward a broader suite of policy tools for water management is needed in order to enable a more flexible and adaptive policy approach acknowledging regional and local particularities. The fragmentation of water management will require collaborative water governance models which will succeed only if a number of conditions are met:
«• they focus on a clear scope and clear outcomes;
• the right people are brought together, with the right convener;
• participants agree to fully get engaged and there is real commitment to the process;
• clear roles are identified for participants;
• the processes foster shared ownership and accountability; and
• an ongoing dialogue is built.»
Finally, the NRTEE Report stresses in various occasions the importance of alternatives to regulation for water management. The potential of markets appears to attract most of the interest in this respect. This is a notable confusion in an otherwise impressively researched and balanced report. Indeed, markets exist only through regulation. Property rights that are generally considered the essential building blocks of markets have often materialised through expansive frameworks constituting the foundations of legal regimes in Western jurisdictions. In other words, markets cannot be presented as an alternative to regulatory approaches, their very existence depends on regulation.
Secondly, the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Science Advisory Board released «Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin» (IJC Report). The IJC Report is a fantastic source of data regarding groundwater in the Great Lakes basin. It conveys the enormous importance of groundwater to the Great Lakes Basin:
«It is estimated that there is as much groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin as there is surface water in Lake Michigan. The groundwater contribution to the Great Lakes tributaries ranges from 48% in the Lake Erie basin to 79% in the Lake Michigan basin. Groundwater maintains stream flows and wetlands during dry periods, supporting significant ecosystem functions. Groundwater is an important source of drinking water in the Great Lakes Basin. 8.2 million people, 82% of the rural population, rely on groundwater for their drinking water. Groundwater also provides 43% of agricultural water and 14% (and increasing) of industrial water in the basin.» (p.1)
The IJC Report consists in a short summary of findings and recommendations complemented by a series of 13 appendices on the most pressing issues regarding groundwater, ranging from the impact of chemical contaminants and pathogens to conveyance losses and applicable laws. Among the many points made in the Report are the following:
- the Great Lakes cannot be protected without protecting the groundwater resources in the basin, both at the quantitative and qualitative levels.
- with respect to volumes, even relatively small groundwater withdrawals have important repercussions. For example, withdrawals in the Chicago area shift the Great Lakes drainage divide as groundwater pumped from the basin is released in the Mississippi watershed after usage.
- with respect to quality, fecal pollution and microbial contamination is one of the most frequently identified threats to Great Lakes groundwaters. Pathogens enter the basin ecosystem from sludge, manure and biosolids land spreading, leaking sewer infrastructure and on-site waste water systems, landfills, cemeteries, injection wells, and waste and stormwater lagoons, all of which can impact groundwater quality.
- An impressive 440 273 229 m³/year of water is lost underground every year in conveyance through outdated and broken sewers and main water lines, notably resulting in severe groundwater contamination. This corresponds to economic losses amounting to US $218 306 566 per year. Montréal loses approximately 40% of its total produced water output, which equals 119 858 800 m³ per year at a cost of approximately $ 44 347 756.
Thirdly, the Fraser Institute has released a new report, «Making Waves: Examining the Case for Sustainable Water Exports from Canada» (Fraser Report). The Fraser Institute emulates the right-wing Montréal Economic Institute and argues in favour of water exports. The Fraser Report posits that Canada has so much water that it can be exported. It considers that unallocated environmental water is lost because it is left unused (p.35). Also, water should notably be explored based on the fact that «History is replete with examples of the superiority of trade to optimize resource allocation. Indeed, market pricing is the most powerful means of equalizing demand and supply.» (p.12; see also 36-37)
The central assertions to the Fraser Report are of dubious value. With respect to the over-abundance of water in Canada, both the NRTEE and IJC Reports reflect the fact that there is a looming water crisis in Canada. With respect to the water supposedly lost because left unused in the environment, the Fraser Report contradicts a very strong consensus in the scientific community to the effect that all characteristics of natural hydrological regimes are essential to preserve freshwater ecosystems (the natural flow paradigm). There is no such thing as lost or excess water. The myth of market efficiency is also easily dispelled following the reasoning of Ronald Coase: in situations of imperfect information, as is obviously the case with respect to water resources in Canada, markets fail.
It is interesting to see that Circle of Blue has decided to give air time to the Fraser Report rather than to the other two reports. This is the type of choice in news coverage that sets the terms for public and political debate.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Report on the implementation of the Québec Groundwater Catchment Regulation
(BY HUGO)
On 28 May 2010, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks published an implementation report (in French) for the Groundwater Catchment Regulation (GCR) covering 6 years from June 2002, the date of entry into force, to June 2008.
The Report provides limited factual data on the implementation of the GCR. It is released almost 2 years after it was due to be made public further to section 64 GCR. The Report bears no date and some of the acronyms listed at the beginning are not used in text of the version released. Nevertheless, some points are worth analysing.
Data on groundwater uses
The Report first provides a portrait of groundwater uses in Québec:
- 20% of the Québec population is dependent on groundwater sources, that number being equally divided between individual wells and municipal systems;
- 54% of the groundwater withdrawn in Québec serves for domestic purposes. Other uses are divided as follows: 39% for agriculture (i.e. 23% of aquaculture and 16% for livestock and irrigation); 7% for industrial usages; 0,08% for drinking water bottling.
These numbers are only indicative as they originate from estimations dating back to 1987. Data on groundwater resources and usages in Québec is insufficient and hampers improved water resources management.
The Ministry attempted to remedy this situation through section 59 GCR, subjecting the owners of catchment sites that yield at least 75 m3 of groundwater per day to an obligation to notify with respect to the location of catchment works, the type of water use, the volume of water drawn daily and the number of days per year when water is drawn. However, according to the Report (p.33), only 251 well owners declared their withdrawals.
Other sources of information stemming from obligations under sections 20 and 21 GCR have not yet resulted in the development of a complete database for groundwater usages in Québec (p.36-37), although the Ministry has received 27726 drilling reports in conformity to section 20 form 2003 to 2008 (p.14).
Further progress on this issue is likely to result from the implementation of the 2009 Regulation respecting the declaration of water withdrawals, that specifically aims at ensuring better knowledge and better protection of the environment by allowing the Government to assess, through the declaration of water withdrawals, the impact of the withdrawals on water resources and ecosystems.
Quantitative management
Under section 31 GCR, the following withdrawals are subject to a ministerial authorisation:
1- groundwater catchment projects having a capacity less than 75 m3 per day intended to supply more than 20 persons;
2- groundwater catchment projects intended to supply water to be distributed or sold as spring water or mineral water or to be an ingredient used in manufacturing, conservation or processing and stated as spring water or mineral water on a product; and
3- groundwater catchment projects having a capacity of 75 m3 or more per day or that will bring the capacity to more than 75 m3 per day.
The Report indicates that 277 authorisations (among which 3 for water bottling) have been delivered between 2003 and 2008 (p.28). The Report fails to detail the number of applications received by the Ministry and does not provide information pertaining to the withdrawal volumes authorised. Significantly, the number of authorisations granted for withdrawal projects with a daily capacity above 300 m3 per day, which is the highest volume bracket under the GCR, accounts for half the authorisations granted.
With respect to the scope of the ministerial authorisation regime, the Report notes two problems: 1) the exclusion of mine dewatering from the regime. This is significant because such withdrawals are reported to be the most important in quantity in Québec. This exclusion is deplored by the Ministry although it results solely from an administrative interpretation of the relevant legal provisions that could have been construed otherwise in order to extend the regime to mine dewatering. 2) The exclusion from the ministerial authorisation regime of withdrawals anterior to the implementation of the GCR. This exclusion was possibly responding to a fear at the time of the Regulation's inception (1996 onward) that the imposition of an authorisation regime would in fact be perceived as an expropriation of private property rights in groundwater.
Both these problems related to the scope of the regime will be resolved when the new authorisation regime provided by the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and provide for increased water resource protection enters into force (see section 19 (31.74 and 31.75) of the Act).
With respect to the municipal authorisation regime applicable to groundwater withdrawals subject to the GCR but not covered by article 31, the Report does not identify significant implementation problems and recommends the continuance of this regime (p.8).
Qualitative management
The Report makes a series of recommendations for improving the technical standards applicable to wells that are not subject to section 31 GCR in order to improve groundwater quality protection (better well waterproofing to prevent surface to groundwater seepage, minimal distances between wells and wastewater systems or agricultural activities to prevent contamination, ...).
The most significant provisions with respect to groundwater quality pertain to protection areas around wells subjected to the ministerial authorisation regime that restrict agricultural activities to limit possible contamination (sections 24-30 GCR). Among 476 municipalities operating wells and contacted by Ministry in April 2008, 65% had established protection areas, 20% were in the process of doing so, and 14% had not initiated the process. As each municipality may possess many wells, this translated in approximately 130 catchment systems around which no protection area were established.
In some case, the Report recommends additional measures to prevent groundwater contamination. The Report identifies nitrate contamination resulting from agricultural activities as a significant threat to public health and recommends the development of provisions to protect groundwater sources given the high treatment costs once groundwater is contaminated. The report also recommends the extension of restrictions placed on nitrogen fertiliser spreading in the context of agricultural activities to golf course operations.
However, in many cases, the Report recommends relaxing applicable provisions to reduce constraints on agricultural operations (see p. 21-24). In this context, the municipal powers to regulate such activities might come to play an increasing role. The result of the appeal of a 2009 Superior Court decision, Ferme l'Évasion vs Elgin (in French), will be crucial to determine the extent of the municipal powers in this respect (see notably section 27 GCR and section 124 para.4 of the Environment Quality Act).
Compliance
260 notices of offense have been delivered by the Ministry, among which 85% for agricultural activities conducted too near a well, 8% for having sunk a well and started a withdrawal without a ministerial authorisation, 4% for installing or maintaining inadequate fenced perimeters around wells, and 3% for not filing the adequate drilling reports with the Ministry.
Significantly, compliance with section 21 GCR by small well-owners is extremely low: a maximum of 6% among them (possibly 6% of 27726? - the latter number being the number of wells drilled by operators that complied with section 20 GCR) have fulfilled their obligation to have the water from their well analysed and have actually sent the results to the Ministry (p.15). However, no notice of offence has been delivered by the Ministry for such violations.
On this issue, the Report appears to conclude that the obligation to analyse the water quality of new wells not subject to the ministerial authorisation regime should be abrogated. Strangely, the reason invoked for abrogating this obligation is the false sense of security that water quality analyses might generate. Another more credible explanation might be the cost of the analyses, which could make the administration unpopular with well owners if the penal provisions were enforced. Hence, the Report recommends ministerial disengagement and reliance on existing awareness-raising initiatives.
On 28 May 2010, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks published an implementation report (in French) for the Groundwater Catchment Regulation (GCR) covering 6 years from June 2002, the date of entry into force, to June 2008.
The Report provides limited factual data on the implementation of the GCR. It is released almost 2 years after it was due to be made public further to section 64 GCR. The Report bears no date and some of the acronyms listed at the beginning are not used in text of the version released. Nevertheless, some points are worth analysing.
Data on groundwater uses
The Report first provides a portrait of groundwater uses in Québec:
- 20% of the Québec population is dependent on groundwater sources, that number being equally divided between individual wells and municipal systems;
- 54% of the groundwater withdrawn in Québec serves for domestic purposes. Other uses are divided as follows: 39% for agriculture (i.e. 23% of aquaculture and 16% for livestock and irrigation); 7% for industrial usages; 0,08% for drinking water bottling.
These numbers are only indicative as they originate from estimations dating back to 1987. Data on groundwater resources and usages in Québec is insufficient and hampers improved water resources management.
The Ministry attempted to remedy this situation through section 59 GCR, subjecting the owners of catchment sites that yield at least 75 m3 of groundwater per day to an obligation to notify with respect to the location of catchment works, the type of water use, the volume of water drawn daily and the number of days per year when water is drawn. However, according to the Report (p.33), only 251 well owners declared their withdrawals.
Other sources of information stemming from obligations under sections 20 and 21 GCR have not yet resulted in the development of a complete database for groundwater usages in Québec (p.36-37), although the Ministry has received 27726 drilling reports in conformity to section 20 form 2003 to 2008 (p.14).
Further progress on this issue is likely to result from the implementation of the 2009 Regulation respecting the declaration of water withdrawals, that specifically aims at ensuring better knowledge and better protection of the environment by allowing the Government to assess, through the declaration of water withdrawals, the impact of the withdrawals on water resources and ecosystems.
Quantitative management
Under section 31 GCR, the following withdrawals are subject to a ministerial authorisation:
1- groundwater catchment projects having a capacity less than 75 m3 per day intended to supply more than 20 persons;
2- groundwater catchment projects intended to supply water to be distributed or sold as spring water or mineral water or to be an ingredient used in manufacturing, conservation or processing and stated as spring water or mineral water on a product; and
3- groundwater catchment projects having a capacity of 75 m3 or more per day or that will bring the capacity to more than 75 m3 per day.
The Report indicates that 277 authorisations (among which 3 for water bottling) have been delivered between 2003 and 2008 (p.28). The Report fails to detail the number of applications received by the Ministry and does not provide information pertaining to the withdrawal volumes authorised. Significantly, the number of authorisations granted for withdrawal projects with a daily capacity above 300 m3 per day, which is the highest volume bracket under the GCR, accounts for half the authorisations granted.
With respect to the scope of the ministerial authorisation regime, the Report notes two problems: 1) the exclusion of mine dewatering from the regime. This is significant because such withdrawals are reported to be the most important in quantity in Québec. This exclusion is deplored by the Ministry although it results solely from an administrative interpretation of the relevant legal provisions that could have been construed otherwise in order to extend the regime to mine dewatering. 2) The exclusion from the ministerial authorisation regime of withdrawals anterior to the implementation of the GCR. This exclusion was possibly responding to a fear at the time of the Regulation's inception (1996 onward) that the imposition of an authorisation regime would in fact be perceived as an expropriation of private property rights in groundwater.
Both these problems related to the scope of the regime will be resolved when the new authorisation regime provided by the Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and provide for increased water resource protection enters into force (see section 19 (31.74 and 31.75) of the Act).
With respect to the municipal authorisation regime applicable to groundwater withdrawals subject to the GCR but not covered by article 31, the Report does not identify significant implementation problems and recommends the continuance of this regime (p.8).
Qualitative management
The Report makes a series of recommendations for improving the technical standards applicable to wells that are not subject to section 31 GCR in order to improve groundwater quality protection (better well waterproofing to prevent surface to groundwater seepage, minimal distances between wells and wastewater systems or agricultural activities to prevent contamination, ...).
The most significant provisions with respect to groundwater quality pertain to protection areas around wells subjected to the ministerial authorisation regime that restrict agricultural activities to limit possible contamination (sections 24-30 GCR). Among 476 municipalities operating wells and contacted by Ministry in April 2008, 65% had established protection areas, 20% were in the process of doing so, and 14% had not initiated the process. As each municipality may possess many wells, this translated in approximately 130 catchment systems around which no protection area were established.
In some case, the Report recommends additional measures to prevent groundwater contamination. The Report identifies nitrate contamination resulting from agricultural activities as a significant threat to public health and recommends the development of provisions to protect groundwater sources given the high treatment costs once groundwater is contaminated. The report also recommends the extension of restrictions placed on nitrogen fertiliser spreading in the context of agricultural activities to golf course operations.
However, in many cases, the Report recommends relaxing applicable provisions to reduce constraints on agricultural operations (see p. 21-24). In this context, the municipal powers to regulate such activities might come to play an increasing role. The result of the appeal of a 2009 Superior Court decision, Ferme l'Évasion vs Elgin (in French), will be crucial to determine the extent of the municipal powers in this respect (see notably section 27 GCR and section 124 para.4 of the Environment Quality Act).
Compliance
260 notices of offense have been delivered by the Ministry, among which 85% for agricultural activities conducted too near a well, 8% for having sunk a well and started a withdrawal without a ministerial authorisation, 4% for installing or maintaining inadequate fenced perimeters around wells, and 3% for not filing the adequate drilling reports with the Ministry.
Significantly, compliance with section 21 GCR by small well-owners is extremely low: a maximum of 6% among them (possibly 6% of 27726? - the latter number being the number of wells drilled by operators that complied with section 20 GCR) have fulfilled their obligation to have the water from their well analysed and have actually sent the results to the Ministry (p.15). However, no notice of offence has been delivered by the Ministry for such violations.
On this issue, the Report appears to conclude that the obligation to analyse the water quality of new wells not subject to the ministerial authorisation regime should be abrogated. Strangely, the reason invoked for abrogating this obligation is the false sense of security that water quality analyses might generate. Another more credible explanation might be the cost of the analyses, which could make the administration unpopular with well owners if the penal provisions were enforced. Hence, the Report recommends ministerial disengagement and reliance on existing awareness-raising initiatives.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Water case law in Québec 3: groundwater extraction under the agricultural zoning regime
(BY HUGO)
In Québec, a new groundwater abstraction may have to be authorised under two governmental authorisation regimes.
The first regime is provided for by the Groundwater Catchment Regulation and generally targets all groundwater extraction projects in Quebec.
The second authorisation regime, which is provided by the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (ARPALAA), is not primarily concerned with groundwater management and is only applicable in rural areas.
Nevertheless, the ARPALAA has impacts on groundwater management in Québec. Some of these impacts are described in this article.
The purpose of the ARPALAA is to preserve agriculture and agricultural land. Essentially, the ARPALAA is a land use management statute that generally prohibits any person, except with the authorisation of the Commission de protection du territoire agricole (CPTAQ), from using real estate property for purposes other than agricultural activities in designated agricultural regions.
Hence, if someone wants to extract groundwater in zoned agricultural land, the CPTAQ has to pre-authorise the extraction project. However, CPTAQ's decision, whether positive or negative, can be contested before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ).
In Vergers Leahy inc. v. Fédération de l'UPA de St-Jean-Valleyfield (in French), the Appellant requests CPTAQ's authorisation to sink a well to produce bottled water in agricultural zone. The CPTAQ rejects the application and the Appellant contests this decision before the ATQ. In this instance, the parties request permission to file new evidence.
Among the many issues pertaining to administrative law decided in this appeal, the Court of Appeal crucially delineates the cases in which new evidence can be brought before the ATQ in appeal of the CPTAQ.
The Court establishes that the ATQ can only consider new evidence when there is an error in law or a determining error in fact in CPTAQ's original decision, in conformity with section 21.4 of ARPALAA.
As a result of all this, a refusal to authorise a groundwater abstraction project stands.
In Québec, a new groundwater abstraction may have to be authorised under two governmental authorisation regimes.
The first regime is provided for by the Groundwater Catchment Regulation and generally targets all groundwater extraction projects in Quebec.
The second authorisation regime, which is provided by the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (ARPALAA), is not primarily concerned with groundwater management and is only applicable in rural areas.
Nevertheless, the ARPALAA has impacts on groundwater management in Québec. Some of these impacts are described in this article.
The purpose of the ARPALAA is to preserve agriculture and agricultural land. Essentially, the ARPALAA is a land use management statute that generally prohibits any person, except with the authorisation of the Commission de protection du territoire agricole (CPTAQ), from using real estate property for purposes other than agricultural activities in designated agricultural regions.
Hence, if someone wants to extract groundwater in zoned agricultural land, the CPTAQ has to pre-authorise the extraction project. However, CPTAQ's decision, whether positive or negative, can be contested before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ).
In Vergers Leahy inc. v. Fédération de l'UPA de St-Jean-Valleyfield (in French), the Appellant requests CPTAQ's authorisation to sink a well to produce bottled water in agricultural zone. The CPTAQ rejects the application and the Appellant contests this decision before the ATQ. In this instance, the parties request permission to file new evidence.
Among the many issues pertaining to administrative law decided in this appeal, the Court of Appeal crucially delineates the cases in which new evidence can be brought before the ATQ in appeal of the CPTAQ.
The Court establishes that the ATQ can only consider new evidence when there is an error in law or a determining error in fact in CPTAQ's original decision, in conformity with section 21.4 of ARPALAA.
As a result of all this, a refusal to authorise a groundwater abstraction project stands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)