Ruth You Ree Kim; 66050063; Page 1 of 6

Ruth You Ree Kim; 66050063

The Complexities of Water Governance and Management in British Columbia and Canada

Water is a critical participant in conversations relevant to Canadian identity, landscape and

resources. With over sixty percent of Canadians choosing “fresh water as the most important

natural resource for the country’s future”, it is evident that issues relating to fresh water are

increasingly gaining prominence (Nanos, 2009, p. 12). Most Canadians, however, believe in the

“myth of water abundance”, assuming that there is an infinite supply of water resources and thus

take the presence of fresh water virtually for granted, without any regard to biological or

environmental consequences (Bakker, 2009, p. 17). Although for years Canadian waters were

managed under the assumption of “unlimited abundance”, it is becoming increasingly evident that

water quality degradation and supply limitations are forcing water management issues into “the

consciousness of citizens” and politicians (Kennett, 1992, p. 1).

Water issues in Canada thus tend to be intergovernmental in scope as water-related public

policies cross provincial and territorial boundaries, and constitutional authority. Particularly in

British Columbia, issues of water governance have been convoluted and made complex through

various “multiscale structures of interacting institutions” involved in water management decisions

(Cohen, 2006, p. 334). In my paper, I will address some of the complications involved with fresh

water management in relation to the jurisdictionally fragmented governance in Canada, focusing

particularly on the jurisdiction of British Columbia. I will also highlight some key

recommendations to the conflict over water governance in Canada as made by both scholars in the

field, and myself, although it should be recognized that water management issues are highly

contestable, and almost impossible to solve comprehensively.

A Division of Powers and Jurisdictional Fragmentation

According to a poll conducted by Nanos (2009), half of the Canadian respondents polled

thought that all levels of government– federal, provincial and municipal, should take the greatest

responsibility for supplying fresh water, with the next biggest percentage believing that the federal

government should be primarily responsible (p. 12). With Canada’s highly decentralized

government system, the allocation of jurisdictional responsibilities over resource management tends

to become complex and controversial. Jurisdictional fragmentation, defined by Hill, Furlong,

Bakker, and Cohen (2008) as “the allocation of responsibility for water governance amongst

multiple actors and/or agencies, with relatively little or no coordination”, arises as political powers

become befuddled between and within different levels of government (p. 2).

Under the Constitution Act, provincial responsibilities include “proprietary rights to surface

and ground water resources”, and authorization for use, supply, pollution control, and development

relating to water and flow regulations (Davies & Mazumder, 2003, p. 279). On the other hand, the

maintenance of jurisdiction involving navigation, fisheries, international waters, national parks and

aboriginal reservations traditionally falls under federal oversight (Ibid). Furthermore, in local

contexts, water supply is usually managed municipally (Sauders & Wenig, 2006, p. 121). This

“division of governance powers” can have some positive implications. Sauders and Wenig (2006)

argue that provinces can “overcome functional limits” through a degree of “interprovincial

coordination” (p. 120). Provinces can also help to represent a diversity of interests and voices in

relation to water management, ranging from private companies, to local community actors, to

governmental institutions, among others. Reversely, federal involvement can safeguard the

“national and international character of aquatic species and hydrologic systems” and raise water’s

“moral significance” to a national concern (Ibid, p. 121). Through other powers, the federal

government also has the power to help “resolve interprovincial disputes, monitor water systems,

affect national health policies, manage pollution, and oversee environmental assessments” (Gordon
 Ruth You Ree Kim; 66050063; Page 3 of 6

Water Group of Concerned Scientists and Citizens, 2008, p. 3). A division of jurisdictional powers

can also serve as a balancing mechanism with which to check the political power between

government systems.

Jurisdictional fragmentation, however, can also be a potential source of problems and have

negative implications. Firstly, a lack of intergovernmental coordination in decision-making often

exists between and within the different levels of government. Instead of cooperation and unilateral

decision-making, discontinuity is often present between policy makers. A lack of cooperation

between different actors may lead to delayed policy and ineffective decision-making, having

adverse effects on communities or local groups who may sorely need funding or the implementation

of certain policies. Secondly, various actors involved with water management may choose to act

out of self-motivated interests, which may result in detrimental over-exploitation and mistreatment

of water resources, and the ecosystems and biodiversity that depend on a supply of fresh water.

Often the nature of these conflicts is complex in scope and difficult to solve, as they require

cooperating interaction between and within inter-jurisdictional relations in order to reach

comprehensive political and institutional solutions. It is thus evident that a measure of

standardization and coordinated efforts is necessary in order to deal with the “already complex

debate” over how to balance the increasing demands for a steady supply of high quality fresh water

with rising environmental and ecological concerns (Bakker, 2009, p. 17).

A Case Study of Water Management in British Columbia

To highlight the difficulty of reaching an integrated and coordinated agreement between

inter-jurisdictional parties further, a case study of water management in British Columbia may be

observed. In April 2001, British Columbia enacted the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA),

outlining the development of drinking water protection plans within BC (Davies & Mazumder,

2003, p. 280). In September 2001, under a new provincial government, this Bill was placed under
 Ruth You Ree Kim; 66050063; Page 4 of 6

review by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) and it was concluded that BC

urgently needed “the consolidated legislation that the DWPA provides” (Ibid). The protection of

surface-source drinking water, however, also falls under the jurisdiction of “any Ministry in contact

with watersheds, lakes, and rivers, including Ministries of Environment, Forests, Health, Energy

and Mines, and Transportation and Highways” (Ibid). Therefore, if the recommendations of the

DWPA review panel are followed and a new Drinking Water Protection Agency is formed, each of

these ministries would be required to relinquish some of their current jurisdictional power.

Although BC Ministry of Health Services has recently been designated as the lead agency

responsible for the safety of drinking water, no Drinking Water Protection Agency has yet been

formed, and currently in its present form the DWPA is only a framework (Ibid). Although the new

public policy would greatly strengthen the ability to improve water quality, this case study

highlights the complexities that exist within intergovernmental disputes. Ultimately, cooperative

water policy objectives that would benefit the public is delayed or ignored due to a lack of political

will and coordination.

Possible Solutions to Water Governance and Management?

In their article, Hill, Furlong, Bakker, and Cohen (2008) argue for greater federal

involvement in “stimulating harmonization in drinking water legislation, watershed governance…

and water exports” by forming, funding and supporting research and dissemination initiatives, and

“cross-jurisdictional working groups” (p. 15). Saunders and Wenig (2006) echo this sentiment by

claiming that, historically, the federal government has been “excessively cautious in construing its

constitutional mandate with respect to water management” (p. 137). In another article, the

seemingly dormant federal government is urged to “go back to the table in a way that supports and

reinforces the efforts of other levels of government, local watershed organizations, and Canadian

citizens” (Gordon Water Group of Concerned Scientists and Citizens, 2008, 3).
 Ruth You Ree Kim; 66050063; Page 5 of 6

Because there are competing uses of water, a conflict of interests, and a mismatch within the

multiple scales of geopolitical boundaries, it is difficult to determine lasting approach to water

manamgement. Nevertheless, I personally agree with most of the recommendations made by the

referred members of the academic community in this article. I also believe it is vital, however, to

go beyond economic abstract models to delve into real political situations. As water networks tend

to follow the wealth demographic, access to water becomes not only a governmental issue, but also

an inter-relating issue of power and politics whereby real individuals and communities become

affected by water scarcity. Water should be viewed as a human right, and not simply a privilege as

it is a non-substitutable aspect essential for human life (Gleick, 2000, p. 131). Although debates in

leadership exist between government levels, within local communities, debates also arise about how

to get people to comply with environmental issues and what is dictated to be beneficial for

themselves and their community.

Poor governance can translate to water governance problems. Thus it is vital to maintain

open and reliable communication channels both within and between governmental institutions and

local communities. Increasing community knowledge and awareness about the issues of water

governance and management is also important. Focusing on preventing pollution rather than simply

mitigating it and thinking of integrated water management systems that takes land use, water quality

and water quantity into account are other key points.

The management of Canada’s water resources is likely to remain an urgent and complex

controversy in the years to come, as it questions the very underlying fabric of the design of

federalism and interjurisdictional fragmentation in Canada. Water management, however, has real

life implications in urban and rural settings and the need exists for a coordinated, wholistic, and

integrated approach to solving water management issues.

References

Bakker, K. (2009). Water security: Canada's challenge. Policy Options, summer 2009, 16–20.

Davies, JM., & Mazumder, A. (2003, July). Health and environmental policy issues in Canada:

the role of watershed management in sustaining clean drinking water quality at surface

sources. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(3), 273–286.

Gleick, P. H. (2000, March). The changing water paradigm: A look at twenty-first century water

resources development. Water International, 25(1), 127–138.

Gordon Water Group of Concerned Scientists and Citizens. (2008). Changing the Flow: A

blueprint for federal action on freshwater. Retrieved from http://www.gordonwatergroup

.ca/page/blueprint

Hill, C., Furlong, K., Bakker, K., & Cohen, A. (2008). Harmonization versus subsidiarity:

Emerging trends in water governance in Canada. Canadian Water Resources Association

Journal, 33(4), 1–18.

Kennett, S. A. (1992, August). The design of federalism and water resource management in

Canada (Research paper, Queen’s University, 1992). Institute of Intergovernmental

Relations, 31.

Nanos, N. (2009). Canadians overwhelmingly choose water as our most important resource.

Policy Options, summer 2009, 12–15.

Saunders, J. O., & Wenig, M. (2006). Whose Water? Canadian Water Management and the

Challenges of Jurisdictional Fragmentation. In K. Bakker (Ed.), Eau Canada: The future of

Canada’s water (p. 119–142). Vancouver: UBC Press.