The Bog is where thoughts, opinions, discussion pieces, and action converge. Influential thinkers from the water community are invited to share their insights on current or controversial water topics. Please note that the views expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Alberta WaterPortal.
Guest Columnist: Bob Sandford
No Mere Budget Cut
Let us be clear. Unless you believe that contracting a flesh-eating disease is a reasonable way to lose weight, it is difficult to interpret what is presently happening to Environment Canada as a mere budget cut. To accept what we have seen happen to this crucial federal government department as mere fiscal belt-tightening is to fall for a public relations cover-up. Canada’s most important environmental institution is not being trimmed. It is not just going through temporary hard times. It is being hollowed out, gutted, dismembered alive. It is being destroyed.
What is happening to Environment Canada should be of great concern to water managers throughout Canada. Because of warming mean temperatures, the hydrology of every region of the country is on the move. The agency responsible for monitoring these changes on a national scale is being utterly incapacitated.
We are about to lose the baseline against which we measure the meaning of such changes in terms of their effect on our economy and our environment. The water management community in this country would do well not to underestimate the relevance of Environment Canada monitoring and research. Despite huge cuts to the department in the 1990s, Environment Canada researchers still managed to produce two of the most influential assessments of the threats to our country’s water quality and availability to appear to date in this young century. These reports remain the foundation of water management planning throughout Canada. Environment Canada’s capacity to serve this country in this and other ways in the future, however, is now is doubt.
Guest Columnist: Tilly MacRae
What Are You Willing To Pay For Your Water?
The book "The Big Thirst" discusses how we have been in a golden age of water, a period of free and accessible water while the earth's climate has been warming. Water has been so inexpensive, readily accessible and reliable that to society it has become invisible. This is not to say that we do not appreciate, or misunderstand its importance, it is just that it has become so available that we do not even consider the implications of usage and waste, when we do use it.
The result is that society has created a false economy for water. For sure, there have been some economic accounting for water, often with a fee charged to households and industry. But this only reflects the cost of delivery and purifying the water (not any cost for the raw water itself). The result is a standard economic reference point or price for water that is not sustainable.
This form of socio-economic thinking cannot last. Water is a life critical commodity and a life sustaining fuel. Our water problems relating to shortages, accessibility, purity and availability are imminent, and need to be addressed as part of our social balance.
The issue is, how can we change a consumptive behaviour that is so ingrained in our culture? Historically with all other valuable commodities, society has placed a value or a price on that commodity. The concept could easily be extend to water by charging the population for their water usage, and thus creating an awareness and sensitivity about how everyone's actions affect water usage.
Guest Columnist: Chris Bolton
Please pass the E. coli O157:H7
Canada is currently experiencing one of the heaviest spring run-offs in decades. Much of this water is coming from adjacent fields and agricultural operations. You may be surprised to know that this water may contain more than your typical unwanted nitrates and minerals. For example, a disturbing trend has developed across Canada whereby unwanted biological pathogens are steadily entering our waterways. One such pathogen is Escherichia coli, which we commonly know as E. coli.
E. coli is the most common of the intestinal flora found in domesticated animals and is “shed” by those animals daily. In the United States 40% of waterways have been deemed contaminated with E. coli. A problem that is becoming more problematic as much of that water is used to irrigate food crops, for recreation, or for drinking water. Consider further that a much more pathnogenic strain of E.Coli known as Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (more commonly known as E. coli O157:H7), has steadily grown in prevalence within these animals and within our waterways. E. coli O157:H7 was detected as early as 2000 in Alberta watersheds and was later linked to increasing domesticated animal density in Southern Alberta in 2003.
Unlike common E. coli, E. coli O157:H7 is often deadly requiring as few as 10 cells to make you seriously ill. There is no available human vaccine to protect against this bacteria and the use of antibiotics may worsen disease symptoms. A very serious complication arising from the disease is hemolytic uremic syndrome which can lead to kidney failure. Particularly vulnerable groups include children, the elderly and immuno compromised individuals.
Guest Columnist: Dianne Saxe
Canada: Speaking For The Public: Who Pays?
Who should pay the costs, when a public interest intervenor succeeds before an administrative tribunal?
The Alberta Environmental Appeals Board awarded an intervenor $76,067, payable by the Town of Turner Valley. Ms. Walsh, who lives on a disability pension, had persuaded Alberta Environment and the Board to require additional monitoring of a municipal drinking water reservoir, over the opposition of the municipality. Her work "resulted in a better Amending Approval, one that will ensure the protection of the water supply for all of the Town's citizens."
Both parties to Walsh v. Director were likely disappointed with the result. Ms. Walsh had sought costs of $368,207 against the Town; the Town sought a costs award of $304,517 against Ms. Walsh. The Town got nothing, because its costs were properly related to its own application for a approval. The doubts raised by Ms. Walsh were justified, since the Town had chosen to put its reservoir in an area formerly used for oil and gas.
Guest Columnist: Richard Jones
For the last 116 years, Alberta’s water allocation system has been based on the principle of first in time, first in right. This means that the first person to obtain a licence for the use of an allocation of water has priority to water in dry times over someone who obtained a licence at a later date. This priority principle goes as far back as Roman and feudal law.
The first in time, first in right system of water allocation was established in Alberta by the North-West Irrigation Act (1894) and continues today in the Alberta Water Act.
Recently, the Town of Okotoks applied to transfer water allocations under existing water licences to provide for future municipal growth. The transfer of a water allocation from an existing licence holder to another person is permitted by the Water Act. But the fly in the ointment – the Town of Okotoks seeks not only a transfer of the existing water allocation, but asks that the water licence be amended so it can divert and use up to 3 times more than the existing licence allows. It seeks what has been coined as a “net diversion licence”. This fictional type of water licence would allow for a diversion of water in excess of the total volume allowed under an existing water licence so long as the excess volume of water is returned at some point. I use the word “fictional” as this type of water licence is not contemplated by the Water Act.