Four steps to take right away to protect our province's life giving resource.

-
Beyond public scrutiny, vast amounts of BC's water are being dealt to 'fracking' operations.
-
Experts say we're recklessly draining BC's groundwater, heedless of global warming.
-
Floods and droughts on the radar. Can we adapt?
- Read more: Politics, Environment,
In 2010 B.C.'s South Peace Region, downstream from the massive W.A.C. Bennett Dam, was so arid that the province ordered natural gas companies to temporarily halt their water withdrawals from local rivers and streams.
That same year, far to the south in the state of Nevada, the water impounded by the iconic Hoover Dam plummeted to a level not seen in 54 years, forcing a one-quarter cut in hydroelectricity production.
The two events, separated by thousands of kilometres, demonstrate how vulnerable hydroelectric power production can be to climate change. But there is another aspect to such events that often goes overlooked. We also need energy to pump, heat and treat water.
We may not often think about the close interconnections between our water and energy resources. But now, more than ever, we need to. Climate change, increasing industrial demands for both water and energy, and our growing population demand it.
Consider, further, that in 2010 B.C. also recorded an electricity trade deficit, meaning that the province imported more electricity than it exported. It was the fifth time in 10 years that such a deficit occurred, compared to only once in the previous 20 years.
The increasing frequency of such deficits strongly suggests that we are beginning to confront limits in our ability to produce enough power for domestic needs.
Measure the flow
This, then, is an ideal time to ask much-needed questions. Questions such as what impact our provincial government's economic and jobs plan, which calls for eight new mines and three liquefied natural gas plants by the end of the decade, will have on our critically important water and energy assets.
To facilitate the government's plan, BC’s hydroelectric grid is undergoing a massive expansion. In the northwest of the province, a 344-kilometre transmission line is being pushed into the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine rivers to provide power to new open pit mines and what could soon be a sprawling network of coalbed methane gas wells.
A hydro transmission expansion of even greater magnitude is in the works for the northeast quadrant of the province, which would set the stage for accelerated production of some of the most water-draining, energy sucking natural gas on Earth.
It is inconceivable that such expansions can occur without adverse impacts on water and hydro resources.
We need to get serious about understanding exactly how much water big consumers actually use -- something, incredibly, that the province does not currently do. As just one example, of the 31 water licenses issued to pulp and paper companies -- big water and hydro users -- only one requires water metering. This is unacceptable in a province where natural resource industries are a fixture of economic life.
Our government also places public water and hydro resources at risk when it fails to value them properly. Natural gas companies, for example, pay at most $2.75 to the province for each Olympic swimming pool's worth of water withdrawn from rivers, lakes and streams -- water that is rendered so toxic that it is permanently removed from the water cycle. The corresponding charge in Quebec is $175.
Four steps to take right now
We believe there are four things that can be done immediately to set the stage for improved management and governance of these critical resources.
The first is to require that all major water users report fully on the water they withdraw, including water withdrawn from hydroelectric reservoirs, and that the provincial government publish such information.
The second is to charge more for water and electricity use, in a manner that ensures that price increases are equitably shared and that lower income earners are not disproportionately affected. Conservation gains alone could save growing communities tens of millions of dollars on new water-delivery and treatment infrastructure.
The third is to promote policies that result in energy being captured from currently underutilized waste streams. This is sometimes referred to as resource recovery, a prime example of which is found in the Southeast False Creek area of Vancouver, where up to 16,000 residents will one day derive most of their heat from the under-passing sewage stream.
And the fourth is to promote policies that better protect watershed lands, recognizing that conserving water flows in such landscapes safeguards our water and hydro resources.
One thing that's certain about climate change is that it means more uncertainty ahead. In the face of such uncertainty, regulations that encourage the wise use and conservation of our water and energy resources should be a public policy priority. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png)
6
Login or register to post comments
Hakuin
25 weeks ago
a provincial and federal government that see
water as something to be sold have no interest in preserving a safe supply for their serfs. If they die, more can be quickly bred or imported.
frank2
25 weeks ago
All good points. Where do the
All good points.
Where do the parties stand on them? (or will they continue to obfuscate because they are afraid of losing mining and fossil fuel revenues?)
lynnescape
25 weeks ago
Water is LIfe
There is absolutely no excuse for giving gas, oil and mining companies permission to pollute our water. Ultimately, we could survive with a lot less oil and gas, but we could not survive without water. Laws should be put in place with teeth in them to protect our water, our lifeblood.
OwlRol
25 weeks ago
Population, consumption, big corporate growth
So, as the BC and Canadian population grows, it's something we really need to consider limiting rather than constantly increasing.
Not for racist fears amongst some, but to contain urban sprawl and ecosystem degradation. Yes, we have a huge land base but a rather small, natural carrying capacity, especially the further north we look. We can temporarily rely on a "phantom carrying capacity", but it's not sustainable, consider the ghost towns when the resource(s) run out.
We also require more water and energy for our per capita consumption, much of it beyond comfortable survival needs, from lawn and golf course watering, tech battery recharging to bigger homes (I truly think that "trophy" and "vacation" home owners should have to pay a hefty premium for water and electricity to maintain their mostly empty vampire structures) to increased travel. Trains were much more efficient on the whole than cars and trucks, never mind air travel, but...
However, it's the big extractive industries that require the greatest energy, land and water resources and they've lobbied the government hard to get huge discounts.
BC might need some increases and upgrades for its growing, consumptive population, but nothing close to the current plans except for these corporate needs, most of it for export. But 2 myths allow this.
1. If they don't get the prices they want, then they'll go elsewhere. Not much oil or fracking gas in the Canadian shield or the coastal mountains, need sedimentary fields and valleys, preferably not too far below the surface. They won't be gone for long.
2. Can't handle tough environmental or high wage (union) labour to compete, have to continue externalizing the real costs. Raised prices will simply be passed on to consumers.
So do we try to compete with Asian labour? Or rapid environmental degradation? If so we're hooped.
Despite the grumbles, it could be a good thing for consumers to cut back and learn to conserve, although some poorer folks are seriously hurt. Recession also has some opportunities, among them greater efficiencies, improved, not just cheaper ways of producing or selling, and improved labour and environmental results.
Besides, like Christmas feasts, we need to learn how to say "enough".
catchingupagain
25 weeks ago
capital transfer: Subsidize electricity to compress LNG exports
It would be interesting to see, as citizens are bestowed with double digit increases in BC Hydro electricity (an inflation we all feel) how much of our energy, both in quantity and unit cost, is used to compensate BC Hydro for the cheaper electricity it provides industrial users who take the subsidized electricity to create their export product.
Perhaps there haven't been Enron style mis-allocations, however, as demand grows with population and industry, and climate alters source consistency, it would be good to have indicators to show rates and costs when subsidized energy loads take priority to the public purpose, and where in industry that load use goes to value-added industries, like wood mills, and where to extractive exports. How does that compare across Canada?
How much do citizens compensate for extractive industrial exports?
snert
25 weeks ago
Here's where things fall apart
"The second is to charge more for water and electricity use, in a manner that ensures that price increases are equitably shared and that lower income earners are not disproportionately affected. Conservation gains alone could save growing communities tens of millions of dollars on new water-delivery and treatment infrastructure."
The generation of electricity does not, in and of itself, waste water.
Any wastage of water, on the other hand, only becomes an issue when the water being used is not being restored to a suitable condition before being returned to the environment.
In BC we have ample water.