The committee met at 8:34 a.m.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Having the agenda, our first witness today is Mr. Gary Mitchell, provincial archivist and director of the B.C. archives.

 G. Mitchell: Good morning.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): And you have some material here to table?

 G. Mitchell: Yes. The Public Documents Committee has reviewed some ongoing records schedules from several ministries and agencies, and they wish to table these for your review. The first one is the Forest Practices Board operating records schedule. This will cover all program records of that agency since its creation. The second is the records relating to the legislative counsel, Ministry of Attorney General. The third is library services, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The fourth is the safety engineering services division, also of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The fifth is the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission, all records relating to that. I might add that each of the schedules allow the archives to retain those records of historical and evidentiary value, and the Electoral Boundaries Commission. . . . We will do that with minimal destruction when the records are turned over to us. So if there are any questions. . . .

 G. Mitchell: Thank you.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): We will now quickly deal with the consideration of committee draft reports. The first one, "Collection of Overdue Accounts Receivable," has been circulated. Kelly, would you just bring us up to date, please.

 K. Dunsdon: Good morning. The format is a bit different this time with this report. We have underlined the changes, and anything that's been deleted has a line through it. It's just to draw the members' attention to the changes. There are some wording changes based on the discussions from the last meeting, which are very minor, and I won't discuss those in detail. It's just to point them out. They're on pages 5, 7, 8, 12, 22, 23, 24, 30, 35 and 42, and they're just very minor grammatical changes and so on.

 There have been some changes to the first set of recommendations on page 14 of the report. In particular, recommendations 1.8 and 1.9 have been removed. You'll see that on page 14. Those were dealing with the debt counselling referral program and multilingual notices of debt and payment demands. Mr. van Iersel has advised that he was going to look into those issues and come back to the committee at a future date. Also on page 14, the last recommendation in set No. 1 incorporates a follow-up mechanism for the committee, asking that Mr. van Iersel return in six months to provide more information about debt counselling and multilingual notices.

 On pages 31 and 32 of the report there are some recommendations to the Ministry of Health. Recommendation 4.6 has been changed. Previously we had asked the Ministry of Health to reattend following completion of a pilot project that it had underway to do with private sector collection agencies. But there were some concerns that this was too indefinite, so the date has been changed to November 1999, when they are to reattend before the committee. Those are all the changes.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Do we have any questions or comments on this from the auditor general's office? Are you okay?

 P. Gregory: Yes, we're fine.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Comptroller general's office?

 A. van Iersel: I'm fine, as well.

 P. Calendino: Looking on page 14 at recommendation 1.8, which we have struck out, that seems to me to be an issue which may benefit some small businesses -- to refer them to the debtor assistance branch if they have attempted to pay debts but have some difficulty. I'm just wondering why we decided to strike that one out.

 K. Dunsdon: At the last meeting my impression was that members didn't feel there was enough information about this to actually incorporate it as a recommendation in the report. I think that Mr. van Iersel was going to come back with more information about how that would work and which collection programs would be appropriate to refer debtors to the debtor assistance branch. My impression is that now the debtor assistance branch doesn't provide counselling for businesses; it's just for individuals and families.

 P. Calendino: Yeah, but even if it's just for individuals and families, the students are probably included in there. I think it would be wise to retain referrals to the debtor assistance branch for people who are willing to pay off their debts.

 Perhaps Arn would like to make a comment on that.

 A. van Iersel: Yes, if I may. These two recommendations -- Nos. 1.8 and 1.9 -- arose out of discussions between the Clerk's office and the debtor assistance branch. They did not come out of the auditor general's audit. I had asked indulgence from the committee last time to do some further research in talking to the debtor assistance branch and to the various ministries in terms of the multilingual billing, to provide more information for you to consider the recommendation on the basis of that information -- whether or not it should proceed.

 Really, what I was asking was. . . . I'm coming back later this year to present a progress report, and I wanted to give you information that you could consider. At that time, if the committee wants to make a further recommendation, it could be done then. I just felt we didn't have enough information in terms of the cost of the notices, in terms of the role that the debtor assistance branch felt they could play relative to provincial debts.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): I think that was the overwhelming view of the committee at the last meeting.

P. Calendino: I do recall that a decision on recommendation 1.9 was made, on the recommendation of Mr. Weisgerber, about the multilingual notices. At one point it does not really refer to multilingual notices -- just the general recommendation.

 A. van Iersel: On recommendation 1.8, I wanted to have the opportunity to discuss with the debtor assistance branch -- further to what Kelly Dunsdon had discussed with them -- as to what in particular they saw as their role and how it might relate to the various ministry collection programs. I wanted to come back and report to you on that -- what their views are and what the ministries felt was appropriate.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): No other questions? Do we have a motion to accept this report?

 M. Coell: So moved.

 Motion approved.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): A motion to present the report to the House?

 M. Coell: So moved.

 Motion approved.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): The next item is "Follow-up of 1996 Performance Audits/Studies." As the Clerk is handing them out, Kelly, could you walk us through this one, please?

 K. Dunsdon: Once again, the changes to this report have also been underlined and crossed out to draw members' attention to them. There have been some minor wording changes, at the suggestion of members, arising out of the last meeting.

 In terms of changes to the recommendations, there had been some inconsistencies in the previous draft with respect to the follow-up mechanism for the committee to follow up on how ministries have acted upon the committee's recommendations. I have separated those out into their own separate recommendations for each section of the report just to make it clear who is to reattend and when and what they are to speak to.

 Changes to the specific recommendations. . . . On page 49, trucking safety, recommendation 15 has been changed. There was some discussion at the last meeting about the relationship between weigh-scale staff and the trucking industry. I have revised the report to include a reference to the relationship there, and I hope that accurately reflects what we heard at the last meeting. That's on page 49.

 As a result of the change, the recommendation now reads: "Your committee recommends that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, motor vehicle branch, implement the Partners in Compliance program in B.C. as soon as possible in order to improve the relationship and lessen the hostility between the branch and the trucking community."

 Also on page 49, recommendation 17 recommends that ICBC consider whether information in National Safety Code profiles can be used to determine whether licensing and insurance can be obtained by commercial carriers in B.C. There was some discussion at the last meeting about whether "commercial carriers," as that term is used in the recommendation, applies to the farming community. I think that concern was raised because in the code, commercial vehicles are defined by their weight and include vehicles with a registered gross vehicle weight of 4,500 kilograms or more. Because the scope of the audit that was done by the auditor general's office was restricted to trucking safety, I've changed the wording in that recommendation to refer to trucking undertakings -- just to make that more clear.

 The discussion on Crown corporation governance, which I believe is at page 51 of the report. . . . There had been a discussion at the last meeting about the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. Specifically, there was a recommendation that the committee be reactivated, which implied that it has actually done work already -- which it has not. So the wording of that recommendation has been changed. The recommendation now reads: "Your committee recommends that the government activate the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and refer to it matters that would allow that committee to provide the oversight role necessary to ensure that Crown corporations are accountable for setting and meeting objectives." Those are all the changes to the report.

 R. Kasper: Yes.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay. Thank you.

 J. Weisgerber: I'm concerned that if we have these words "trucking undertakings." It's fine saying commercial carriers are struck out -- and I understand that this is replacing it -- but it's not a term. . . . I've been around the trucking business all my life. I don't think it will mean anything to people. There must be a better description: commercial truck operators or. . . . I'm not sure that there's any confusion between commercial and farming use. It's a small point, but I think that in isolation or standing on their own, the words "trucking undertakings" won't mean an awful lot to anyone. I think we should find a better description for what we're trying to cover, which is commercial operators and farm vehicle operators.

 While I'm at it, under new recommendation 15 -- again, it's picayune -- I would strike out the word "the" in the changes that you've made and instead say "lessen hostility" as opposed to "lessen the hostility."

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Perhaps that will do it right there -- commercial carriers and farm truck operators. Is that acceptable to everyone?

 J. Weisgerber: Out of the mouths of babes.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Could I have a motion to adopt the report as amended?

 Motion approved.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): A motion to present the report to the Legislature?
 

Motion approved.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, now we'll move along to "Protecting Drinking-Water Sources." We would call first the auditor general's staff, please.

 P. Gregory: Mr. Morfitt is away from the office today, and I'll be sitting in for him.

 This morning the committee is going to review our audit that examined the protection of drinking water sources. This audit is part of our continuing program of audits that examine environmental matters. Safe drinking water is important to British Columbians, and this audit examines some of the value-for-money issues involved in protecting drinking water sources. With good management, we can avoid or reduce the considerable capital and operating costs that would be involved in building the treatment plants needed to remediate deteriorated source-water.

 I'm joined today by the team that carried out the audit. The team was led by Mr. Les McAdams, a principal in our office, who was assisted by Ken Lane and Heather Daynard, two of our senior project leaders.

 We'll start this morning with a brief presentation which provides an overview of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. I'll turn it over to Mr. McAdams, who will make the presentation.

 I'd like to begin this presentation by explaining why we decided to undertake this audit. Safe drinking water has generally been available in B.C. with minimal treatment and at minimal cost. Many other jurisdictions are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to rely on polluted drinking water sources requiring intensive purification. Nevertheless, in recent years the incidence of waterborne disease has been rising in B.C. Reported rates are, on average, higher in B.C. than elsewhere in Canada. Partly in response to this, many systems are considering adding more expensive treatment to the water sources. We wanted to find out if this was the result of weaknesses in source-water protection.

 In B.C. many activities take place in community watersheds and the land which feeds underground sources. These include forestry, recreation and transportation, all of which can affect the quality of the water. The impacts of these activities include colour and odour; turbidity or cloudiness, which is usually due to suspended particles of fine sediment; excess levels of nutrients, especially nitrates; pathogens such as fecal coliform bacteria, Cryptosporidium and Giardia; and chemicals. Some of these can affect human health. Excess nitrates are particularly dangerous for babies. Crypto and Giardia cause diarrhea, vomiting and other intestinal problems.

 Water systems in Victoria and Vancouver draw from watersheds that they control. They can therefore protect them from uses that might threaten the water quality. Most communities across B.C., however, do not have this level of control. These communities are the focus of our audit.

 All fresh water in B.C. belongs to the Crown. So does most of the land area of the province. The provincial government, therefore, has primary responsibility for drinking water sources and for protecting them from harmful activities. Failure to protect B.C. drinking water sources from these activities may lead to a continuing fall in the quality of the water. Without treatment, this will lead to increased health costs to treat water-related illnesses, and it could also have negative economic impacts on our tourism industry.

 For example, in Cranbrook in the summer of 1996 there was a huge increase in the number of visits to doctors. This can be seen by the huge spike on the green line of the graph. You can see it there. This occurred at the same time as an outbreak of Crypto. The black bars below the green line show the number of cases of confirmed Crypto that were confirmed by laboratory tests. To control the outbreak, health authorities issued a boil-water order that closed pools and the waterslide and that required restaurants and dentists to use filtered water. The local chamber of commerce estimated that $5 million in business and tourism revenues were lost as a result. Although the cause of the outbreak is disputed, the event illustrates the potential impacts of unsafe drinking water supplies.

 Additional treatment would also be costly. For example, we estimate that the capital costs of installing filtration for all municipalities outside Victoria and Vancouver would run at about $700 million. We believe, therefore, that the human and financial costs of not protecting our drinking water sources would be unacceptably high.

 At the same time, we recognize that protecting drinking water by shutting down all economic and social activities that might harm it is unrealistic. Accordingly, the question we set out to answer with the audit was the following: is the province adequately protecting drinking water sources from the impacts of human-related activities such as logging, agriculture, and transportation? An adequate level of protection, in our opinion, would be one which achieves an appropriate balance between the benefits of safe drinking water and the benefits of other resource uses.

 Management of drinking water in B.C. involves many agencies at both the provincial and municipal levels. As a result, we interviewed and gathered documentation from staff in seven ministries and two special agencies, as well as from municipal officials in the eight centres and from regional health authorities. We carried out extensive research on the impacts of various activities on source quality, and on best management practices used in other jurisdictions. This was supplemented by advice from consultants and advisers whose

skills and experience included freshwater biology, grazing management, water treatment engineering, land use management, hydrology and local government administration.

 Here are the overall conclusions that we reached from our work. We found that the major drinking water sources we examined have continued to provide good-quality water. However, we found that several of them and many smaller systems have already been impacted by or are exposed to threats from human-related activities. We concluded, on balance, that the province is not adequately protecting drinking water sources from human-related impacts and that this could have significant cost implications in the future. We recognize that drinking water source protection may result in the loss of some economic benefits to other resource users in the water supply area. We also recognize that it is not possible to protect drinking water sources against all possible negative impacts. Each system will require a different level of protection, depending on the circumstances.

 However, our study has convinced us that source-water protection would reduce the level and therefore the costs of the treatment required. We concluded, therefore, that the best approach to drinking water protection is a layered approach. This is also known as a multibarrier approach. It combines source protection and treatment at levels appropriate to the system but also allows other activities in the watershed. We believe this approach will result in the best value for money in the long run. They were the overall conclusions.

 Now we'd like to take you through the detailed findings, and we would like to begin with the eight mid-size to large-size systems that we looked at. In 1997, Fort St. John switched to a new groundwater system. The old system had drawn from Charlie Lake, which suffered from high levels of harmful nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria. This was a result of surrounding agricultural lands and substandard sewage disposal. Algae blooms added odour and colour to the water which existing filtration could not remove. The new groundwater system uses an aquifer, which is believed to draw water from the Peace River via layers of granular material. These layers naturally filter out pathogens so that little further treatment is necessary. In contrast to Charlie Lake, the new system also has an abundant supply of water.

 Prince George has been using groundwater since the 1960s. Most of the water is from the Nechako River and enters the aquifers through layers of gravel and other materials. As with Fort St. John, this process acts as a natural filter to remove pathogens. The aquifers here, however, are shallow, which makes them highly vulnerable to surface contamination. This picture shows a large spill of diesel fuel in 1997, which continues to threaten one well. A second well was closed down earlier to guard against possible contamination from leakage from a tank farm. City officials told us that they are concerned about housing developments using septic tanks which are located upslope of the wells.

 Prince Rupert relies solely on surface water from two lakes in an isolated location. The lakes are surrounded by steep rain forest. The only access to the watershed is via city land or Indian reservation. The area is unlogged and protected as a community watershed. City officials closely control access by gating and by the type of signage that you can see there. The water does have some colour as a result of the surrounding vegetation. However, this also gives it a higher-than-average acid content, which increases the effectiveness of chlorination.

 Cranbrook draws from a watershed which is also the site of a public road, grazing, logging and off-road recreation. The water is stored in a large fenced reservoir -- seen in this picture -- which helps to counteract turbidity by allowing sediment to settle out. In periods of high turbidity, the city can use two wells as an alternative source for some areas. It also has plans to build a diversion so the turbid water can be bypassed around the system. A more serious problem is the risk of parasites in the water. An outbreak of Crypto raised concern about cattle grazing on Crown lands in the watershed. The city has worked with the Ministry of Forests to fence cattle out of the reservoir, but they can still reach the streams that feed it. Public road travel and off-road recreation are also a concern. These activities present a high risk of contamination entering the feeder streams. Also, the road runs beside an open channel which flows into the reservoir.

 Kelowna is served by five major water systems. We looked at the largest system, which is operated by the city of Kelowna and serves about half the population. This system draws water from Okanagan Lake via intakes about 70 feet deep. In 1996, following 100-year records for high creek flows, Kelowna had an outbreak of Crypto. Evidence suggests that the parasite was spread via the city system, but the exact cause was not known at the time of the audit. The lake and its feeder watersheds are affected by the full range of human activities. The parasite is present to some extent in the lake all year round. The city is currently considering options for reducing risks of outbreaks, including a proposal to spend $44 million on improved treatment and distribution.

 Abbotsford relies on two water systems. A groundwater system serves one-third of the population. The Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer on which it draws is unconfined and highly vulnerable to contamination. In recent years two wells have been shut down due to elevated nitrate levels. The high nutrient levels are believed to be caused by inadequate septic tank systems and excessive use of manure and fertilizers. Major highways, rail lines and the Abbotsford Airport are also located above the aquifer, creating a high risk of chemical contamination. Because the distribution system is old, it requires frequent flushing and high disinfection levels. Continued groundwater supply is also a concern. Abbotsford is a rapidly growing area, and studies by the city estimate that there is little unused capacity left in the aquifer.

 The rest of the population uses surface water piped from Norrish Creek on the north side of the Fraser River. The watershed has been logged for many years and is subject to landslides, which contribute to high turbidity. The use of forest roads by recreationists to access the watershed for camping and water sports is a concern to the city. However, efforts to restrict access have been ineffective. The surface system uses chloramine as a disinfectant to control bacteria levels. It is cheaper than chlorination and more effective against bacterial regrowth; however, it presents a greater hazard to fish if treated water were to escape into local creeks. The Central Fraser Valley Water Commission plans to add filtra-
 

tion to remove Norrish Creek turbidity, to expand the surface system to all parts of the city and to build facilities to pipe water from the Harrison River by gravity feed. This will address several issues, including the need for enough water to serve population growth and to maintain fish habitat in Norrish Creek.

 Now, looking at these eight major centres taught us a number of things. First, each case is unique. Some of the cities have secured water supplies that are relatively low-risk. Others are faced with a wide variety of threats. What they all have in common is the need to manage land use around the water source. Another outstanding feature is that all of them, except Nanaimo, are dependent on the provincial government to manage that land use.

 What does all of this mean? The overall conclusion we reached is that the current approach to protecting drinking water is too piecemeal. First, land use planning needs to be integrated and made more effective. Second, with seven ministries and other agencies involved, the interests of water protection are often quite diffused within government. We need a coordinating voice from within government that speaks for drinking water protection. We also learned that there is a need for accountability, both at the local level and at the provincial level, for the protection of drinking water sources. Related to this is the need for comprehensive guidelines for drinking water quality. Finally, we learned that there is a need for a consistent approach to the rights and responsibilities of water providers; it is a patchwork at present.

 To deal cost-effectively with drinking water use and other competing resource uses, we believe that an integrated land use management process must include three essential elements: it must ensure meaningful involvement for all stakeholders, including drinking water consumers and suppliers; it must be supported by good information on both the natural conditions in the watershed and the values and impacts of competing watershed uses; and it must include an effective mechanism for handing on recommendations to elected or appointed officials who have the authority to implement them.

 Over the years, the province has put considerable effort on attaching into the integrated management of land use on Crown lands. These processes have required large investments of time, effort and money by provincial and local governments, by the private sector and by citizens. However, we have found that each of the processes tried to date has lacked one or more of these three essential elements. As part of the process of strengthening the land use management process in B.C., we also recommend that the province carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the appropriateness of the rights and responsibilities of drinking water suppliers with respect to their access to water resources.

 We believe that the government should designate a lead agency to represent the interests of drinking water users and suppliers within government and to coordinate government action on drinking water issues. Such a lead agency could support the integrated land use management process by contributing experience and technical knowledge and by translating recommendations from the process into government action. It could also coordinate the development of drinking water policy and legislation and the collection of supporting information.

 We would also like to see regular reporting on drinking water sources at both the provincial and local levels. We suggest that the province work with local drinking water suppliers to ensure that information is gathered and reported cost-effectively. We also recommend that the province issue a comprehensive set of guidelines for good drinking water, so that decision-makers and citizens can better understand the information they receive.

 I'll start with logging. The main threat posed to water quality by logging is increased turbidity. Where logging occurs on Crown land, the Forest Practices Code gives extra protection to community watersheds. We support the code's approach of planning and monitoring. We are concerned, however, that gaps in the application of the code limit its effectiveness in water source protection. First of all, requirements for information-gathering and assessment are not yet operational. Regular reporting on inspection does not happen. And criteria for monitoring the water quality and for clear assignment of the responsibilities are not yet in place.

 Next, cattle grazing. If it's not properly managed, cattle grazing can add sediment and harmful bacteria and parasites to drinking water sources. The Forest Practices Code requires that where cattle grazing occurs on Crown land, the grazing must be managed according to an improved plan. In our opinion, however, the controls that must be included in such a plan are insufficient to adequately control the risks to drinking water. We would like to see the provisions of the code expanded to minimize these risks, and we would like to see clearer responsibility for monitoring.

 Next, outdoor recreation. Many watersheds that supply drinking water also provide outdoor recreation activities such as camping, water sports, use of all-terrain vehicles and backpacking. Many water system operators and regulators are concerned that outdoor recreation may threaten water quality. However, we found that very little information was available on the effects of recreation on drinking water quality. We are recommending that, as a first step, the province gather some information as a basis for future policy development.

 Transportation links often lie within areas that replenish underground water supplies. Chemical spills, as well as con-
 

taminated runoff, can have negative impacts on groundwater and on surface water. In addition, paved surfaces hinder the natural return of water to aquifers. We are recommending that the province give more attention to planning and building transportation routes and infrastructures so as to minimize water source damage.

 Agriculture. Crop-growing and livestock-raising, if not properly managed, can add a number of contaminants to drinking water sources. In B.C., excess nutrients entering groundwater have been the main agricultural threat to drinking water so far. Large-scale pig, cattle and poultry operations -- such as those in the lower mainland, Peace River and Kamloops areas -- are a concern, because the volume of manure they produce often exceeds the capacity of the land. This is further complicated in areas such as the Fraser Valley, where there is an increasing use of land for crops such as berries, whose need for added nutrients is low. Some farms continue to apply manure and fertilizers at traditional levels, and this can result in nitrate buildup in the groundwater.

 Control of water contamination from agricultural wastes depends on compliance by farmers with the code of agricultural practice for waste management. To date, compliance has not been high enough to solve the nutrient contamination problem. Agricultural nutrients have contributed to well-water contamination in the Fraser Valley and in the areas around Armstrong, Osoyoos and Grand Forks. To deal with this, we recommend that the province strengthen and monitor compliance with the code. We also recommend the introduction of region-specific regulations.

 Last, with respect to the impact of human settlement, we focused on sewage disposal. There are approximately 250,000 septic tank systems in B.C. Nutrients released by septic tank systems can build up in the soil or groundwater over time to unhealthy levels or can encourage the growth of algae that make water treatment more expensive. Adding new systems in an area that already has high nutrient levels may trigger problems. However, on approving subdivision proposals, approving officers can only look at each proposal in isolation and cannot consider the cumulative effects of other projects. Once a septic tank system is in place, there are no explicit requirements that it be maintained properly. We recommend that the province introduce controls to manage the cumulative effects of septic tank nutrient release and to ensure proper maintenance of septic tank systems.

 Groundwater management is a special cause for concern. In the past, groundwater was plentiful and relatively uncontaminated. However, a disturbing number of known groundwater sources in B.C. are now contaminated. To date, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has classified about half of B.C.'s developed aquifers, most of which are used for drinking water, and 10 percent of these have been contaminated to the point where water quality is a health concern. In addition, many of B.C.'s aquifers are showing signs of depletion, and 8 percent of classified aquifers in B.C. are at risk due to heavy use.

 At this point, B.C. has little legal protection for groundwater from pollution or depletion. The Water Act does not apply to groundwater. As outlined earlier, controls over transportation, agriculture and human settlement are inadequate to prevent groundwater contamination. Efforts to manage the province's groundwater resources are hampered by a lack of knowledge. Half of the developed aquifers and most other aquifers have not yet been mapped, and there is limited monitoring of well-water levels and quality.

 We are recommending that groundwater usage and levels be systematically monitored in all developed aquifers in B.C. Similarly, we would like to see regular monitoring of groundwater quality in all developed aquifers and more frequently in all vulnerable aquifers. We also recommend systematic collection and analysis of information on aquifers by the province as the first step in establishing an effective groundwater management system.

 Our last area of concern is small water systems. Ministry officials estimate that there are about 100,000 individual systems and about 1,500 small community systems in the province. Small systems are most often developed in rural areas. This is also where activities such as logging, agriculture and grazing are likely to be found. This means that small systems are frequently exposed to impacts from these activities. They often use small water bodies which are less able to absorb impacts. However, small system owners seldom have the resources to move to a better source.

 At the same time, small systems often cannot access existing provincial protection. Many small surface water systems are too small to qualify for protection as community watersheds under the Forest Practices Code. Those systems that rely on groundwater, as well as many individual surface water systems, also lack any assurance of rights to an ongoing supply through the Water Act. Small water systems typically lack dollars and staff to do regular testing and preventive maintenance. Most small systems do not qualify for provincial funding for capital costs of upgrades.

 The large number of these systems and the small numbers of users they support make it difficult to argue that they should be afforded the same degree of water source protection as larger systems. On the other hand, health authorities note that these smaller systems are sites of a high percentage of water-related health problems in B.C. Clearly there's a need to find a balance between providing water source protection for small systems and ensuring that system owners take responsibility for providing the best system within their resources. We believe that the special circumstances of these systems warrant special attention. We are therefore recommending that they be considered in any examination of the rights and responsibilities of drinking water system owners.

 In summary, our recommendations cover five main areas related to drinking water source protection: changes to existing processes for integrating land use management to ensure that they include comprehensive stakeholder involvement, good supporting information and effective implementation; changes to the internal administrative structure of government in terms of designation of a lead agency for drinking water interests within government and better accountability reporting; improvements to the management of logging, grazing, outdoor recreation, transportation, agriculture and on-site sewage disposal to reduce impacts on drinking water sources; regular monitoring of groundwater quality and quantity and systematic collection and analysis of information on aquifers; finally, increased attention to the needs and responsibilities of small water systems.
 

This completes our report. Thank you for your interest in the report. We're open to questions.

We have a number of other witnesses. What would be the wish of the committee? Would you like to hear from everyone that's here before we do questions? We'll go through the witnesses, and we thank them for being very patient. We also apologize for having to cancel a few previous meetings.

 I guess, on my list, we'll go to the water management branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Before you start your presentation, if you could announce your name and position for Hansard, please.

 P. Khare: Prad Khare. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to introduce several officials who are present here. I'll be the only one presenting on behalf of the government, although as a coordinated response they've all had input to this presentation and will be available for any questions. In addition to myself I have Ben Kangasniemi from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Back there I have Barry Willoughby, director of the public health protection branch in the Ministry of Health. We have Bob Smith, manager of environmental health programs, from the Ministry of Health. We have Garth Webber-Atkins, senior policy specialist with the Ministry of Forests. We have Doug Macfarlane, regional director for the Okanagan in the the growth strategies office of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. And we have Kaaren Lewis from the land use coordination office -- she's the acting director of LUCO. In addition, there are at least four other agencies and ministries who have some responsibility in this area who were unable to be here: the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, the environmental assessment office, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

 We have 25 copies of our presentation available for distribution. If needed, we can give them to the Clerk. Ben Kangasniemi has those copies.

 On behalf of the agency representatives attending, we wish to thank the office of the auditor general for the effort in undertaking such a complex audit and for providing staff with opportunities for constructive input during the preparation of this report.

 This audit was complex, not only in that it involved so many agencies but also because it addresses an issue which is technically complex, with new information emerging fairly rapidly, and directly affects every British Columbian.

 The recommendation from the audit has provided the provincial government with a useful focus to improve drinking water source protection measures. It will also be very useful to local governments who, in many cases, are water purveyors with significant responsibility to provide safe drinking water.

 The government response, published with the audit report and summarized in this presentation, is an integration of key efforts undertaken by all nine affected ministries and agencies.

 We'll cover five major areas in the presentation: just a bit about the context and the roles of various parts of the government; the overall position that the government advances in response to this audit; the actions taken; the detailed response; and "Where do we go from here?" -- in other words, the next steps.

 The diagram on the next slide shows that the delivery of safe water depends on a balanced approach to all measures, including consideration of the health and economic aspects of all these elements. Delivery of safe water depends on four basic levels of protection, referred to as the multibarrier approach. The four parts of the multibarrier approach are: source-water protection, which is highlighted on the overhead and was part of the audit; treatment; properly functioning distribution systems; and monitoring and evaluation of water quality and health outcomes.

 The audit focused on the source-water protection issue. However, the provincial government has responsibility for elements of all of the others. Water treatment and distribution issues are mainly the responsibility of health authorities -- provincial headquarters and regional health authorities -- and individual purveyors such as local government and private utilities. Responsibility for monitoring finished drinking water quality is shared by the health authorities and the purveyors. Health outcome assessment is the responsibility of the health authorities. This division of responsibility is fairly consistent across Canada.

 The overall position, in the next slide. . . . I will now outline some of the actions taken, leading up to the auditor general's report. We have taken several actions since 1994. Clearly the auditor general has found some important areas needing improvement. I will refer to some of these in more detail later. The bottom line is that source-water protection is recognized as an essential part of providing safe drinking water to all British Columbians.

 Source-water protection is important and can reduce costs associated with treatment. It should be noted, however, that out of the 28 identified waterborne disease outbreaks in B.C., three were from human health-related activities, and the remaining were from wildlife, which contributes a major source of contamination.

 Consideration must be given to the impacts of land use restrictions on economically important users such as forestry, mining and agriculture. Certain minimum levels of treatment, such as disinfection, are required regardless of source-water quality. Many purveyors, mostly smaller systems, are not presently providing this minimum level of disinfection. Because parasites such as Cryptosporidium can originate from people, wildlife and livestock, land use restrictions may have limited success.

designed for community watersheds and to protect drinking water. The land and resource management plans -- LRMPs -- promote round-table discussions to consider drinking water sources -- and drinking water is definitely represented where it is warranted. The Health Statutes Amendment Act requires the provincial health officer to report to the government and the public on drinking water issues. The Fish Protection Act provides numerous new tools to protect streams from fish, which also benefits other water uses, including drinking water. For example, the Fish Protection Act has a provision to protect the riparian zone, which reduces sedimentation. Another provision is to provide the designation of water management areas to address water quality where it is a problem.

 The non-point source -- commonly known as NPS -- action plan recently released by the government identifies actions that agencies and the public can take to minimize the impact on water quality from widespread minor but incremental water pollution issues. The Environmental Assessment Act of 1995 also addresses the water uses -- including drinking water -- of major proposals and protects the requirement that groundwater extraction be reviewed under the Environmental Assessment Act. The new municipal sewage regulation which has just been enacted encourages new waste treatment technologies to prevent water pollution.

 Let me now address some of the detailed response to the auditor's four key recommendations. The auditor's four key recommendations are addressed in the overheads that will follow. The last chapter of the auditor's report is the formal government response on these recommendations prepared by all nine affected ministries and agencies. Let me highlight some specific actions from this chapter that respond to each of these recommendations:

 1. Improving integration of water resource management. The provincial health officer is the lead to report to the public and the cabinet on an annual basis on the state of the drinking water.

 2. A provincial-level directors committee of all the responsible agencies has been established to integrate water issues and discuss issues related to drinking water among different ministries.

 3. We have taken steps to ensure that the provincial staff are better prepared to participate in the land and resource planning activity, and we will be doing further training in that area.

 4. Through training and guidance, we encourage better collaboration between regional Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks officials and regional health authority officials.

 5. Lastly, we encourage the regional health authorities to increase participation in the land use planning activities.

 The auditor's next major recommendation is related to the improvement of management of resource uses in the forestry, recreation, mining, sewage and agricultural areas. These are some of the actions being taken or being planned for each of these sectors.

 In the area of forestry, water quality objectives will be set in designated community watersheds. Options for monitoring include involving water purveyors or the industry. In addition, watershed assessment procedures will be required for all community watersheds of the forestry companies.

 In recreation, we have initiated a pilot project which is a study of pathogens and parasite levels associated with recreational access. Unfortunately, the information base in this area is very limited at this point, and we are trying to gather some of that information through studies.

 In the area of mining, we plan to improve the communications with all stakeholders regarding the regional mine development committee processes that are currently in operation.

 In the area of sewage, we are developing model bylaws to improve maintenance of septic disposal systems and use of state-of-the-art technology. We've also enacted the municipal sewage regulations for larger sewer systems.

 The third area is the improvement of groundwater management. The emphasis we have employed is on using the tools that are available within the current legislative framework to prevent groundwater deterioration. Some of the options to improve the information on groundwater usage are: to utilize existing authority under the Health Act to require information on groundwater use -- we're exploring this option -- and requiring the purveyors to maintain records of groundwater use.

 We are also continuing to encourage partnerships with community groups to address local problems through groundwater planning. A couple of examples are. . . . We have to build on the success in the Gulf Islands where groundwater planning is implemented through partnerships with local governments and community groups. There have been some plans done, and some are underway on the Gulf Islands -- by the local communities, with our assistance.

 We are also starting to conduct training programs and workshops on well-drilling methods and well-protection tool kits, in partnership with the British Columbia Water and Waste Association, for the local purveyors. One workshop has been completed recently, and others will follow.

 Plans are also underway to publish the "Well-Protection Toolkit," in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, which helps the community to get organized, define the area they need to protect, identify contaminants, implement management strategies, develop contingency plans and monitor the success.

 The last major area of the auditor general's recommendation is to improve the protection of small water systems. This area certainly needs attention, and we have taken some steps in this area. We have established a partnership with the British Columbia Water and Waste Association, Environment Canada and several ministries within the provincial government to prepare technical guidelines and manuals for the operators of small water systems. These manuals will be in print form and in CD-ROM to make them accessible to as many of the small water purveyors as possible.

 Government also recognizes the need to improve public education on drinking water issues and will be working in
 

that area to improve the access to information, to provide information about appropriate treatment options and to better explain to water users how to apply existing water quality guidelines. These education initiatives are built on the extensive water education efforts that are already underway. Currently we have education and outreach on non-farm source problems and the solutions through the provincial E-teams -- the youth teams -- that are employed.

 Water education outreach has also been established for schools. We have a green team and a water crew that go around to the different schools to educate them about the importance of water and drinking water issues. We have an education program on water conservation, in partnership with the local associations and local governments. We have supported some of the community stewardship groups who educate the local residents through, for example, the B.C. Lake Stewardship Society.

 We have also just signed a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Health, which will include coordinated actions between our two ministries to improve integration through watershed planning, improve water quality monitoring, support implementation of a non-farm source pollution action plan, encourage community and industry stewardship, and improve public awareness of drinking water issues. It will also assist small water system operators through education and encouragement and will also encourage amalgamation and strengthen the enforcement of safe drinking water regulations. The committee also intends to consult with local governments and support local health authorities to implement some of the initiatives.

 In summary, we cannot overemphasize the need to have a balanced approach to all measures, including health and economic measures, when we are considering drinking water issues. The multibarrier approach, which includes source-water protection along with the other three elements of providing safe drinking water, is essential. The provincial agency coordination is important and will be achieved through the interagency directors committee. The provincial health officer is the focal point for public reporting and reporting to cabinet on drinking water issues. Partnerships with federal agencies, local governments, professional associations and within our own government will be undertaken to ensure a good delivery of drinking water to all British Columbians. And the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Health have agreed to a joint action plan on drinking water issues that applies to both the ministries.

 That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): The Clerk's office will also be passing out the summary of the presentation of the auditor general's report given this morning.

 It's quarter to ten. There is an awful lot of material here to start. Does anyone have any questions to start with or suggestions on how you would like to proceed? Arn, do you have any comments at this point in time?

 A. van Iersel: No, Chair. I've read the report. It has no major financial impacts other than the resources that might be required to carry on with the program. From a control point of view, there are no issues for me to comment on.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): If I could just follow up on that, could someone please explain -- and I don't know who it is, but I'm sure that with all of the talent we have here. . . ? Why was the provincial health officer's office picked as the coordinating focal point for this very complex project?

 P. Khare: I'll try to start, and I'll invite my colleagues from the Ministry of Health to add if they like. One of the major recommendations from the auditor general's report was to have a focal point. We know that the provincial health officer has the responsibility under the Health Act to report to the cabinet annually as well as. . . . They have included in their annual report a report on the state of drinking water -- and publicly. They are also at arm's length from any government ministry per se, and we felt that they would be the focal point to gather all the information and report on it. Plus there's the credibility issue; they certainly have a credible office with the public.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): You say that they have a responsibility to report as part of an annual report. Is that the provincial health officer's own annual report, or is it the Ministry of Health annual report?

 B. Smith: That's right, Prad. It's the annual report prepared by the provincial. . . .

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Perhaps you could identify. . . .

 B. Smith: My apologies. My name is Bob Smith. I'm manager of environmental health programs for the Ministry of Health. Prad hit it right on the head, I think, when trying to explain that. Under the Health Statutes Amendment Act, the provincial health officer is obligated to report to cabinet annually. Two years ago he included a section on drinking water. It's expected now that he will include in that report a report on the government's activities and successes related to source-water protection.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): What is the last annual report that's been filed with respect to this?

 B. Smith: I don't know if it's '98 or '99. I would expect it's '98. Drinking water was, I think, included in '96 -- a small section.

 G. Farrell-Collins: I'm wondering if, through any of this process, anyone has tried to quantify the resources that are going to be required to implement these types of recommen-
 

dations. Has there been any dollar figure attached, any attempt to do that, or are we still too early in the process for that?

 L. McAdams: We couldn't quantify the overall costs, because there were too many factors and too many players. What we were able to quantify was a ballpark estimate of the costs of not protecting, not going to a multibarrier or a layered approach, and we came up with an estimate of about $700 million in capital costs at the front end and then operating costs after that and probably another $200 million for smaller water systems, if they had to go to treatment. Now that's one side of the ledger; the other side of the ledger is the cost of shutting down, say, recreational activities or something like that. We couldn't possibly get an estimate on that with the resources we had for this project.

 J. Weisbeck: This report basically deals with one of the barriers. I was happy to see that the ministry came up with the other barriers that are involved in safe water. I'd just like to have your feeling on why we've only dealt with the sources. It's a good start, obviously, but why just deal with that? Why not deal with all the various barriers? Obviously we're not getting a really true picture here.

 L. McAdams: Yes, the audit had to be scoped to make it manageable. We felt that the provincial health officer had already done considerable work in looking at the condition of distribution systems and the water coming out of the tap. The work that hasn't been done in B.C. up to now is looking at the source-water protection, which lay outside of the provincial health officer's area of interest up to now. That's why we put the focus over on the source protection side. We also felt that there was a story here around one ounce of prevention saving a lot of expensive cures later on.

 J. Weisbeck: What would be the percentage of the problem, say, for example, from the source and then obviously at the other end -- the tap part of it and that distribution system? What impact does that have on safe water as a percentage? Or is that difficult to say?

 L. McAdams: It's very hard to say.

 Our interest also is driven by our mandate, which deals with provincial activities which affect land use management around water sources. The distribution systems tend to be municipal and therefore outside of our immediate mandate.

 L. Stephens: You spoke a little bit about the Fraser Valley. You conducted your study around Abbotsford. I'm sure you know that from Abbotsford all the way down to Langley we have three aquifers, and it's been an ongoing issue with us about the contamination. There have been a number of studies, starting about 1992, a couple more in 1996, and there was one in particular -- Project Envirohealth's Report -- in March of '96 that highlighted a number of issues around the contamination -- where it came from and the high nitrate levels.

 Has the ministry -- and I'm presuming it's the Ministry of Environment -- done any kind of long-term groundwater protection strategy? Is there one developed and in place?

 P. Khare: In the Fraser Valley area there are a number of actions that we have as a part of the strategy. You're absolutely right that the studies have shown high nitrate levels in that whole area. In fact, there is a report due to be released by Environment Canada any day now which will show that the nitrate levels are about the same -- they haven't gone down. At least they're stabilizing. In the previous report they were going up steadily, so that's a good feeling for us. But most of the work is needed in the agricultural waste control area -- manure management.

 The Ministry of Agriculture has a number of education programs in their area to bring that up. We also have a task force from various agencies that looks after the Fraser Valley groundwater management, along with an international task force between Sumas and ourselves, which is looking at international issues. There is also concern about the groundwater across the border, because basically it's moving down south. So there are a number of actions in that area through a strategy. Also, the local governments have enacted some bylaws in terms of land use in certain areas where the aquifer is more vulnerable.

 We have done some classification of aquifers which tells you how vulnerable an aquifer is to contamination, based on how gravelly it is and how much clay there is. That has been used by municipal governments for their local land use planning.

 L. Stephens: The township has a moratorium on development on particular parts of the municipality that are susceptible to groundwater contamination. As a matter of fact, there's a report that we're waiting for at the end of July, and that will pretty much determine whether or not that moratorium is maintained or lifted. But for us, this has been ongoing since 1992, and there have been some initiatives undertaken. The agricultural component was one of them, but the other issue that we'd like to address is the well records. There are a number of companies and individual drillers who have kept well records over the years out there and have a wide knowledge of where they are and what state those wells are in. I understand that they've boxed them all up and sent them to the ministry for a database. Is that database being maintained? Has it begun? What status is this well records database in?

 P. Khare: I'm pleased to report that that database is fully operational and functional as of now. Yes, you are right. A couple of years ago there were a lot of backlogged well records that had been sitting in boxes. For the last two years they have concentrated on that, and we have a partnership with the B.C. Ground Water Association. The well-drillers submit the records to us voluntarily, and we punch them into the computer. It's available through the Internet to anyone. Mostly developers and real estate agents want those kinds of records.

L. Stephens: Is there a database on the key environmental factors in contamination? Has the ministry put something like that together?

 P. Khare: The aquifer classification program includes the criteria as to what they look for -- for environmental factors and how the zoning and the land use planning should be looked at. That's where they look at the land use around the area -- what are the chances of contamination -- and also the hydrogeology of the area to decide on that. So that's where the environmental factors would be.

 L. Stephens: Are those available through the Internet as well -- on the web site?

 P. Khare: Those will be. . . . No. I think that'll be available through our office, though, from the water management branch's groundwater section.

 L. Stephens: The other issue you mentioned was the Fish Protection Act. In my particular riding, in the city specifically, there are an awful lot of properties that are impacted by a watercourse of some kind or another. Have the regulations been completed for the Fish Protection Act?

 P. Khare: No, they are still under development.

 L. Stephens: Do you have any idea when you anticipate them to be. . . ?

 P. Khare: I don't at this point, no.

 P. Khare: The groundwater legislation has been recommended several times, but it's still to be enacted or proclaimed at this point. However, I'm not. . . . I think there are some positives about it, but not having groundwater legislation doesn't mean that we have the worst or that we don't have a good groundwater protection regime. With the other provinces that do have groundwater legislation, the evidence doesn't show that they are any further ahead in terms of groundwater protection. I was just speaking to Ontario at 7 a.m. this morning, and they were calling us to see what we are doing, because they have a major problem with all their groundwater issues. So we want to exchange some notes and see how we can help each other out. But we have done a lot of work on a voluntary basis with the Ground Water Association -- well-drillers -- that other provinces would love to adopt. So I think there are pros and cons of legislation, although I'm not saying that it's not needed. But certainly it's not the only thing that is needed.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): The bells rang. But we have gone past them in the past, if people. . . .

 E. Walsh: Is anybody going to be coming back to the next meeting?

 R. Kasper: I hope so.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Well, if that's the wish of the committee, we'll continue. . . .

 E. Walsh: If so, then I'll save my questions until the next meeting.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Super.

 If I could, one question to Mr. Smith, I think it is, of the provincial health officer's office, with respect to this issue. Do you have, for the things you're trying to accomplish in the coming year, sufficient human and financial resources to discharge the responsibilities that have been committed to in this report?

 B. Smith: Good question. We hope to draw on existing resources, through information gathered by the Ministry of Environment, by the regional health authorities and by an independent agency such as, say, the British Columbia Water and Waste Association. And within our shop we will try to put that information forward to the provincial health officer. So we hope to be able to do it within the existing. . . .

 R. Thorpe (Chair): My interpretation of your answer is that there could be a shifting of priorities to accomplish your goals. Is that correct?

 B. Smith: Drinking water is the number one priority to the Ministry of Health, so I don't know if it can go much higher than that.

 R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, thank you.

 I want to let the committee know that tomorrow we will be tabling the earthquake preparedness report in the House. Also, the report on managing drug therapy will be tabled on Thursday. With respect to the auditor general's report on estimates, as requested by Mr. Kasper at the last meeting, a draft outline has been circulated to members of the committee. It would be greatly appreciated if all members who have an interest in making comments or changes to this report could let the Clerk's office know as soon as possible. In fact, what I would suggest is that if members anticipate that they're going to have some input, could they let the Clerk's office -- Kelly -- know so that she can maintain a register, and then we can kind of pursue people, if we're not hearing back, in the interests of moving that report forward.

 Thanks to the witnesses for coming. We appreciate it.

 The committee adjourned at 9:59 a.m.