(BY HUGO)
Wallot v. Québec (City of) (in French) is another example of what appears to be a trend in Québec environmental law: the municipal arena shapes up to be the major battle front on environmental matters. The quote introducing the judgement immediately sets the tone:
«“There is no such thing as absolute ownership. Ownership is being modified constantly by social exigences” (William de Montmollin Marler)»
The reach of this comment is revealed further as the Court acknowledges that our economic system essentially relies on private property (§158).
In this case, the plaintiffs ask the Superior Court to declare null the defendant municipality’s regulation protecting the riparian area around Lake St. Charles.
The lake is the source of 50% of the drinking water provided by the defendant municipality, serving close to 300 000 persons.
During the summers of 2006 and 2007, toxic cyanobacteria proliferate in the lake due to phosphate inputs from fertiliser run-offs, septic tank leakage, etc.
The municipal regulation is adopted in June 2008 to counter this phenomenon by imposing the naturalisation and reforestation of heavily modified riparian areas on a 10 to 15 meters strip of land around the lake.
The plaintiffs are the owners of riparian properties on the Lake St. Charles who contest the validity of the regulation to avoid being forced to return part of their properties to a more natural state.
Firstly, the Court examines whether the defendant municipality is competent to adopt the challenged regulation. The Court states that the extent of municipal powers to regulate environmental matters must be interpreted liberally rather than restrictively. The object of the regulation is to protect the lake’s water quality by preventing the continued degradation of the lake’s riparian area and relates to public interest. This falls within the ambit of the municipal powers to regulate the environment under the Municipal powers Act (see notably sections 2, 4, 6, 19 and 26.1). On this issue, the Court thus concludes that the defendant municipality had the power to adopt the regulation challenged by the plaintiffs.
Secondly, the Court examines whether the regulation is reasonable or abusive. On this issue, the plaintiffs argue that the regulation is equivalent to a «forced dispossession without expropriation and/or a disguised expropriation». This argument mainly relies on section 952 of the Civil Code of Québec, according to which the defendant municipality should have indemnified the plaintiffs. Again, Courts will only interfere with the exercise of municipal powers in exceptional situations. A municipal regulation severely limiting the use of property rights is within the discretionary competence of municipal authorities. In expropriation cases, the general rule is and has long been that any statute providing for expropriation without compensation must be expressed in the clearest and most unequivocal terms, which is not the case for the regulation challenged. However, the Court determines that the plaintiffs keep some usage of the naturalised strip of land subject to the regulation and that their rights are not totally negated. Therefore, the regulation is reasonable and valid.
Thirdly, the Court examines whether the regulation’s adoption process conformed to obligations of procedural equity applicable to acts from an administrative authority. Citizens to which a regulation applies must be informed and have an opportunity to submit their observations. The Court reviews the decision process leading to the adoption of the regulation and determines that it was equitable.
As a result, the plaintiffs’ motion is rejected and the regulation stands. The judgement is on appeal.
On more point is worth mentioning in this judgement. The Court often mentions the precautionary principle and refers to the landmark obiter from the Supreme Court on this subject in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Ville de) (see §31 of the Spraytech case and §91, 92 and 175 of the Wallot case). More particularly, in the section of the judgement determining the reasonable nature of the regulation, the Court states that the testimonies have established «a significant rational link» between the provisions of the regulation and the protection of a drinking water quality source. At this point, the Court reiterates that, according to the precautionary principle, no scientific evidence is required with respect to the evaluation of the means used in the regulation. In this context, the mention of the precautionary principle can only be considered an obiter in the Wallot case.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Canada vs the human right to water and projected trade agreement with the European Union
(BY HUGO)
An article by Maude Barlow and Anil Naidoo from the Council of Canadians in the Toronto Star outlines Canada's role as the leading opponent to the materialisation of the right to water as the UN general Assembly has been presented with a motion on this issue.
Canada's official position is that recognition of the right to water would force Canada to share its water with the USA. This is a weak argument from a legal point of view. As the article points out, a state's obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights are to its own citizens. The article identifies a more pressing menace to Canadian waters:
«Far more dangerous to this country’s water are the provisions of NAFTA, which give American companies rights to Canada’s water, and the proposed Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which will give water corporations the right to challenge local public control of water services.»
The impact of NAFTA on water apportionment and conservation in Canada has been studied in detail by legal doctrine. However, the impact of the projected CETA on water resources management needs to be studied.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has some information to start with. A legal opinion by Steven Shybman from Sack, Glodblatt, Mitchell LLP is made available by the Columbia Institute Centre for Civic Governance and focuses on the impact of CETA on municipal procurements and in particular on the procurements related of drinking water services (see p.18 & ff).
I do not have have the time to look at primary sources and the general legal context of CETA at the moment, but Shybman's opinion suggests that the agreement would be detrimental to municipal control over drinking water services in Canada.
It appears that the draft text of CETA was leaked by the Trade Justice Network last April. One question is why governmental secrecy in the first place? Another one is why do Canadian negotiators appear to agree to initially unfavourable terms for Canadian interests? This seems to be a general tend in international economic trade to the extent that incompetence has been envisaged as an explanation (see Shybman's opinion p.22).
I do not believe this is the case. However, as demonstrated regularly over recent years in daily news, a critical perspective on our political leaders' commitment to general public interest and welfare is healthy.
An article by Maude Barlow and Anil Naidoo from the Council of Canadians in the Toronto Star outlines Canada's role as the leading opponent to the materialisation of the right to water as the UN general Assembly has been presented with a motion on this issue.
Canada's official position is that recognition of the right to water would force Canada to share its water with the USA. This is a weak argument from a legal point of view. As the article points out, a state's obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights are to its own citizens. The article identifies a more pressing menace to Canadian waters:
«Far more dangerous to this country’s water are the provisions of NAFTA, which give American companies rights to Canada’s water, and the proposed Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which will give water corporations the right to challenge local public control of water services.»
The impact of NAFTA on water apportionment and conservation in Canada has been studied in detail by legal doctrine. However, the impact of the projected CETA on water resources management needs to be studied.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has some information to start with. A legal opinion by Steven Shybman from Sack, Glodblatt, Mitchell LLP is made available by the Columbia Institute Centre for Civic Governance and focuses on the impact of CETA on municipal procurements and in particular on the procurements related of drinking water services (see p.18 & ff).
I do not have have the time to look at primary sources and the general legal context of CETA at the moment, but Shybman's opinion suggests that the agreement would be detrimental to municipal control over drinking water services in Canada.
It appears that the draft text of CETA was leaked by the Trade Justice Network last April. One question is why governmental secrecy in the first place? Another one is why do Canadian negotiators appear to agree to initially unfavourable terms for Canadian interests? This seems to be a general tend in international economic trade to the extent that incompetence has been envisaged as an explanation (see Shybman's opinion p.22).
I do not believe this is the case. However, as demonstrated regularly over recent years in daily news, a critical perspective on our political leaders' commitment to general public interest and welfare is healthy.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Water case law in Québec 8: Demolition of a new encroachement in the St Lawrence River riparian zone
(BY HUGO)
In Farazli v. Neuville (Ville de) (in French), the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal of a Superior Court order to demolish works altering the St Lawrence River riparian zone.
The appellant built a large patio, a septic tank and a boat slip on her property in the St Lawrence River riparian zone in violation of the applicable provincial and municipal regulations and while only works for the stabilisation of the river bank against erosion were authorised.
The Superior Court ordered the destruction of the works and the restoration of the site in its initial condition under section 227 of the Act respecting Land Use Planning and Development. The Court of Appeal upholds the Superior Court decision.
In Farazli v. Neuville (Ville de) (in French), the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal of a Superior Court order to demolish works altering the St Lawrence River riparian zone.
The appellant built a large patio, a septic tank and a boat slip on her property in the St Lawrence River riparian zone in violation of the applicable provincial and municipal regulations and while only works for the stabilisation of the river bank against erosion were authorised.
The Superior Court ordered the destruction of the works and the restoration of the site in its initial condition under section 227 of the Act respecting Land Use Planning and Development. The Court of Appeal upholds the Superior Court decision.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Wasted water in the North American Great Lakes
(BY HUGO)
Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin, that shows how wasteful and inefficient water use is in the Great Lakes region. Among notable facts:
«Canadians are among the world’s highest water users per capita, second only to the United States. Current estimates are that Canadians use on average 329 litres of water each day in their homes, the equivalent to over 650 bottles of water (500ml) per day» (p.4)
«the total number of dwellings with inefficient toilets in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem is 4,351,601 – translating into roughly 10 million individuals using inefficient toilets in their homes. Using this information it was determined that a total 213 billion litres of water would be conserved annually by updating all remaining inefficient toilets to efficient ones.» (p.7)
«there is a potential water savings of over 65 billion litres each year if all inefficient shower fixtures in the Great Lakes basin were updated to newer, water efficient models.» (p.8)
«the potential water savings from changing inefficient clothes washers in the Great Lakes basin totals as much as 163 billion litres per year.» (p.10)
«Potential savings from introducing conservation measures on outdoor water use (like lawn watering) is approximately 140 billion litres per year.» (p.12)
As the St. Lawrence River sets record lows flows since the beginning of the year, the report makes an essential and timely point.
Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin, that shows how wasteful and inefficient water use is in the Great Lakes region. Among notable facts:
«Canadians are among the world’s highest water users per capita, second only to the United States. Current estimates are that Canadians use on average 329 litres of water each day in their homes, the equivalent to over 650 bottles of water (500ml) per day» (p.4)
«the total number of dwellings with inefficient toilets in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem is 4,351,601 – translating into roughly 10 million individuals using inefficient toilets in their homes. Using this information it was determined that a total 213 billion litres of water would be conserved annually by updating all remaining inefficient toilets to efficient ones.» (p.7)
«there is a potential water savings of over 65 billion litres each year if all inefficient shower fixtures in the Great Lakes basin were updated to newer, water efficient models.» (p.8)
«the potential water savings from changing inefficient clothes washers in the Great Lakes basin totals as much as 163 billion litres per year.» (p.10)
«Potential savings from introducing conservation measures on outdoor water use (like lawn watering) is approximately 140 billion litres per year.» (p.12)
As the St. Lawrence River sets record lows flows since the beginning of the year, the report makes an essential and timely point.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)