Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Developing a Policy for Establishing Water Quality and Effluent Guidelines under the MVRMA. Water/Effluent Quality Guidelines Working Group August 28, 2008. Overview. Introduce project team Project purpose Approach and methodology Preliminary observations
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Developing a Policy for EstablishingWater Quality and Effluent Guidelinesunder the MVRMA Water/Effluent Quality Guidelines Working GroupAugust 28, 2008
Overview • Introduce project team • Project purpose • Approach and methodology • Preliminary observations • Identify further sources of information and stakeholders to be interviewed
Project Team Michael van Aanhout Senior Advisor Charles Birchall Senior Legal Advisor Expertise: Strategic planning, environmental protection policy, environmental management, evaluation and auditing, facilitation Clients: Fed, Prov, Territorial Governments, Mining, Oil and Gas, NGOs Expertise: Water law, environmental assessment, Aboriginal law Clients: Environment Canada, Health Canada, Industry Canada Kristi Ross Legal Analyst Michael Gullo Project Manager Vicky Weekes Analyst Expertise: Environmental evaluation and review, corporate planning, project management Clients: Federal Government, International Institutions, Mining, Forest Products, NGOs Expertise: Water law, environmental planning, environmental assessment Clients: Environment Canada, Health Canada, Industry Canada Expertise: Water management, environmental planning, policy research and analysis Clients: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, City of Toronto, National Capital Commission
Context/Need OAG Report 2005 MacDonald Report 2007 Working Group Audit: Evaluated INAC’s performance relative to its responsibilities set out in the MVRMA for the development of non-renewable resources in the NWT. Recommendation:“INAC, in consultation with the boards under the MVRMA, should develop standards for water and the Minister should direct the boards to use the standards.” Option 1:Establish uniform water quality objectives Option 2:Establish industry-specific effluent quality criteria Option 3:Establish a process or procedure for defining the above that can be consistently applied on a case-by-case basis • Established in 2008 • Comprised of staff from: • MVLWB • Gwichi’in Land & Water Board • Sahtu Land & Water Board • Wek’eezhii Land & Water Board Water Management Goal: Provide project proponents with greater certainty about water quality standards that must be met to mitigate project impacts. Water Management Goal: Select a NWT-suitable approach to establish greater certainty about water quality standards in the licensing process. Water Management Goal: Create clear and consistent policy and procedures for deriving water quality / effluent criteria for water licenses.
Project Purpose • Purpose: Develop a policy that outlines an overall management framework, an approach and specific procedures for deriving water quality and effluent guidelines for the Land and Water Boards under the MVRMA. Rather than establish fixed water quality and effluent standards… …establish a process that Land and Water Boards can apply consistently to derive and apply project-specific water quality and effluent criteria.
Water Management Context Source: Pollution Probe. 2008. A New Approach to Water Management in Canada. Available at www.pollutionprobe.org
NWT Context Federal Legislation & Regulations Land Claims Water Monitoring MVRMA CCME CIMP Procedure for Setting EQCs Keepers of the Water, Water Wise NWT Water Strategy Land Use Plans Development Sectors (Industrial, Municipal) Baseline Data WQO (stated in different contexts)
Approach Improving Monitoring Implementation Planning Source: Locke, S. Water Policy in Canada: National Workshop Series. Moncton, New Brunswick. October 4–5, 2006.
Feedback from WG Kickoff Meeting Interviews Jurisdictional Analysis Gap Analysis Develop Options Workshop Develop Draft Policy Feedback from WG Briefing with WG Feedback from WG Our Methodology Deliverables 1- Project Initiation and Management Approval of work plan 2- Research and Analysis Gap analysis and jurisdictional report Draft and revised discussion paper 3- Discussion Paper Workshop summary report 4- Dialogue 5- Water Quality Policy Draft and revised policy
Gap Analysis Framework: Planning Water quality plan or strategy? Roles & responsibilities clearly defined? Short- and long-term goals, objectives & targets? Integrated with other resource management plans? Consider water quality with new project development? Consider cumulative effects with new project development? Ecosystem goals and objectives? Consider inter-jurisdictional water issues?
Gap Analysis Framework: Implementation Legislation? Standards & Objectives? Public Involvement? Water protection / management statutes & regulations? Water quality / effluent guidelines & objectives? Contribute to goal setting? Guidance documents or policies for applying water quality standards and managing water resources with new project development? Involved in decision-making? Nature of water issues covered? Involvement of First Nations governments? Mandatory or discretionary provisions? Adaptive management?
Gap Analysis Framework: Monitoring Monitoring? Reporting? Mandatory water quality monitoring? Regular public reporting? Monitoring and evaluation results communicated to appropriate jurisdictions ? Mandatory water quantity monitoring?
Gap Analysis: Monitoring • Selected monitoring data and reports are publically available (online). • Project specific data and reports submitted to Boards • No evidence that monitoring efforts are connected to specific goals or performance measures or a broader water strategy. • No evidence of procedures or a process for using monitoring data to improve overall water management in the NWT.
Gap Analysis Framework: Improving Follow-Up? Procedure in place for periodically evaluating compliance and performance? Framework for setting and reviewing goals, objectives and targets? Mechanisms for enhancing internal and external communication?
Gap Analysis: Improving • The first NWT Environmental Audit Report was released in 2006 and is publically available (online). • It is unclear how or whether recommendations in the audit are incorporated into future water management practices. • No evidence of a framework for setting and reviewing goals, objectives and targets.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Preliminary Observations
Jurisdictional Analysis: Ontario • No overarching strategy in place that addresses all aspects of water quality protection in a comprehensive manner. • Ontario’s approach to water has been largely reactive and has resulted in a maze of laws, regulations, standards and guidance materials: • Ontario Water Resources Act: • General water protection statute; • Permits to Take water – Applies to takings over 50,000 L of water per day; ecosystem and cumulative effects must be considered • The Environmental Protection Act: • Regulation of discharges to water in nine sectors: petroleum, pulp and paper, metal mining, industrial minerals, metal casting, organic chemical manufacturing, inorganic chemical, iron and steel, and electric power generation (MISA) • These two pieces of legislation proved to be ineffective, when seven people died and 2300 became ill after Walkerton's water supply became contaminated with manure spread on a farm near the town.
Jurisdictional: Ontario • Key recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry dealt with source water protection using watersheds as the basis for planning and management, a quality management system for water suppliers, and more competent enforcement. • Led to the creation of: • The Clean Water Act, that requires source water protection and engages local, watershed-based water governance; and • The SafeDrinking Water Act. • Ontario’s Water Quality Standards are fractured: • Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guideline, prescribed by O. Reg. 169/03 standards for 158 chemical/physical, microbiological and radiological parameters, human health, rather than ecosystem focus cf. Manitoba) • Provincial Water Quality Objectives: • Apply to surface and groundwater, focus is the protection of aquatic life and recreation uses
Jurisdictional Analysis: Manitoba • Ministry of Water Stewardship promotes collaborative governance model with citizen engagement and local authorities and relies on local Conservation Districts to deliver water-related management, programs and monitoring. • Strong legislative foundation: • The Water Protection Act sets out binding water quality standards, objectives and guidelines; • The Environment Act sets enforceablelimits for the quality of industrialand municipal discharges; and • The Water Rights Act and Regulation requires a license when water usage exceeds 25,000 L/day. • Current proposal to consolidate all water protection measures into one Act.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Manitoba • Strong policy framework – Manitoba Water Strategy (April 2003) which focuses on: • Water quality; • Conservation; • Use & allocation; • Water supply; • Flooding; and • Drainage. • Integrated watershed-based land and water planning and management. • Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines: • Uses a three-tiered approach, protects ground water and surface water as well as broader ecosystem integrity; and • Includes standards, objectives, and guidelines for over 100 materials, harmonizing the approach with principles advanced by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Saskatchewan • Ministry of Environment responsible for carrying out programs and services relating to water. • The Ministry’s website provides: • “Making sure that our water is clean and safe is a priority for the [Ministry] that often takes balancing the water and wastewater needs of the user with conserving the well-being of our aquatic ecosystems”. • The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002 • Regulation of unauthorized discharges, water quality, drinking and wastewater. The Minister is responsible for: • The supervision, control and regulation of water quality; and • Any impairment of water quality by any adverse effect (s. 16).
Jurisdictional Analysis: Saskatchewan • On 28 March 2002, Commissioner Laing releases his report responding to the outbreak of cryptosporidium in North Battleford drinking water system. • Province acted on his 28 recommendations including: • Creation of the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority to better protect local water supplies; • Re-focusing of SaskWater to concentrate on helping communities find appropriate solutions to their water treatment infrastructure challenges; • Development of clearer, more effective regulations governing the management of waterworks; • Establishment of the Drinking Water Quality Section of Saskatchewan Environment to manage drinking water quality and related issues; and • Development of a new database containing water testing compliance performance and quality results to be available to the public.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Saskatchewan • The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority Act • Purpose and mandate of the Authority includes managing, controlling and protecting water, watersheds and related land resources of Saskatchewan (s. 5) • Authority’s powers include: • Regulate and control the flow of water in any water body; • Receive and consider applications for, and issue, water rights licenses and approvals; and • Promote, undertake and co-ordinate research, investigations, surveys, studies, programs and activities relating to the management, conservation and protection of water, watersheds, and related land sources of Sask. • Water Quality Management: • The Ministry has developed a framework for managing water quality that enables it to meet the following policy goals: • Preservation and protection of water supplies; • Encouragement of economic development; • Preservation of aesthetic values; and • Preservation of fish and wildlife.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Saskatchewan • Decisions relative to the permitting of effluent discharges are made using information on: • Water quality guidelines (WQGs) or WQOs; • The uses of the water body under consideration; • Site-specific water quality data; • The potential for adverse effects; and • The practicality of wastewater treatment. • Two types of WQOs: • General surface WQOs define basic quality characteristics (both narrative and numerical) of surface waters needed to afford a minimum level of protection; and • Site specific surface WQOs define concentrations and conditions needed to protect specific bodies of water.
Jurisdictional Analysis: Saskatchewan • Ministry has adopted a number of general objectives that apply to all waters receiving effluent discharges. • Ministry has established guidelines for effluent mixing zones. • Sask. model described as “well considered” and “scientifically defensible”.
Closing • Sources of Information? • Suggestions for Interviews?