The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Good morning to everyone. I thought what we'd do, if we could, is start the morning off with Kelly giving us a little bit of an update on some of the things she has done on this particular topic over the past month and a half, and then we'd get to the individual witnesses.

K. Dunsdon: In the consideration of the drinking water issue, Mr. Thorpe thought that it would be valuable for the committee to correspond with the following groups and local governments to get some response to the auditor general's report. Those were: the B.C. Medical Association; the Union of B.C. Municipalities; the communities studied as part of the audit, which are Kelowna, Cranbrook, Prince George, Fort St. John, Prince Rupert, Williams Lake, Nanaimo and Abbotsford; the B.C. Water and Waste Association; the Canadian Water Resources Association; and the B.C. Tap Water Alliance. We've received quite a few pieces of correspondence back from those organizations, and those have all been distributed to the members as well as to Mr. van Iersel and to Mr. Morfitt. They've also been summarized in a memo to all members of the committee, dated October 13.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Kelly, did we provide copies to the various witnesses too?

K. Dunsdon: No, they weren't. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, I'm sure they would find that information. . . . At least, I'm sure they'd like the opportunity to review it, so maybe we could provide that to them. Don, did you want to make a comment?

D. Fast: I believe we did get copies of most of the correspondence, so thank you very much.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It has been some time since we were all together. I think it was probably July 6 on this issue, or the 13th, and the witnesses didn't get the opportunity to come forward. Just before we start the process, I'm just wondering, from the auditor general's point of view or the comptroller general's point of view, if anyone has any comments to kick-start this process off again.

G. Morfitt: I did want to mention to the committee that this report provided me with the opportunity to visit the municipal councils of Kelowna, Abbotsford and Nanaimo, three of the cities that were described in the report and three of those where we did some more in-depth work than in the rest of the province. It was a very interesting opportunity, and the municipal councils were very much taken with the report. They appreciated the amount of interest. They also have a strong interest, of course, in this matter of good drinking water. You'll see from the letter that Kelowna wrote to the Clerk that they carried forward to the UBCM a resolution in respect to this report that we put out, and the UBCM passed that resolution -- unanimously, I think. We were quite pleased with that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. Arn, did you. . . ?

A. van Iersel: None, other than just to confirm that I did pass on the correspondence that was sent to me to Mr. Fast for his review prior to coming here.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay, I guess we'll start with the witnesses now. I believe everyone has the list, and that's the order we'll go in. I guess we'll start with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

D. Fast: We haven't prepared any particular presentation this morning, although we do have a status report of the action plan we've developed with the Ministry of Health. If members are interested in that, we've brought copies along and could provide it this morning.

R. Thorpe (Chair): That would be useful.

D. Fast: Just briefly, we have been working with a number of the ministries. We have set up a coordinating committee at the directors level in the ministries and agencies that are named in the auditor's report, and we have developed a specific drinking water action plan involving the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Health. We have discussed this at the UBCM convention that was just held in September. We had a workshop there.

The action plan proposes measures to improve the administration and enforcement of drinking water regulations and the management of non-point source water pollution, to address groundwater inventory and protection, to improve on pollution prevention programs, to address water education and public awareness and also the coordination of watershed stewardship and planning. So in each of those areas we've just provided a brief summary of the status of actions and things that we're working on at the present time.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Fast?

One of the things that I would ask -- and if it's in here, excuse me, not having a chance to read it -- is: have you set deadlines for the achievement of the various goals, etc., that you're attempting to achieve?

D. Fast: I guess we do have action plans in a number of cases, but in terms of the broader recommendations in the auditor's report, we have identified lead agencies. We've also identified other ministries and agencies that will work with those lead agencies, and we're in the process of developing action plans which will include schedules. So in all cases we do not have deadlines, but we do have some action plans, and we're working on others.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is it your intention, then, through this process to get to setting some deadlines, etc., for this committee?

D. Fast: Well, I guess some of these recommendations will take some time to work through. For example, there's a

recommendation for a comprehensive review respecting tenures and liability. We have formed a working group to address that issue. We will be setting deadlines for preparing consultation and reports, but that particular issue may evolve over some period of time. So I can't definitively say that we will have deadlines set in all cases at any particular date.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I guess the reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning is that people have told us that this is their number one priority. From a public perspective, if it is our number one priority, then I would think that the public would be entitled to get some degree of comfort when these issues are going to be dealt with, because people have stated that it's their number one priority. So from my perspective, I think we should be moving. Or I would like to suggest to you that you should be moving and establishing some fairly firm time lines for completing your work. If we don't establish those targets and those goals for completion, somebody will be talking about this eight years from today. I think the public is very concerned. I'd appreciate your comments on that, Mr. Fast.

D. Fast: Well, I take your point, and we'll certainly take that into consideration in our planning and in our work.

J. Weisbeck: There were a number of concerns put forward by the city of Kelowna, and one of the ones that I'd like to pursue here talks about: "Recent cutbacks, particularly within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and within this region leave us skeptical as to whether this agency or others can implement any of the recommendations." You know, there has been a severe cutback in staffing in the Okanagan region. I wonder if you can respond to that and how we could move forward on some of these recommendations with the lack of staff.

D. Fast: We believe that we are devoting adequate resources to this issue. In addition, we're not working on this alone; there are a number of ministries and issues. So we are working in partnership with others on this issue. And as the Chair has noted, this is a priority. We've stated in the past that we are prepared to give this a high priority, and we are devoting resources to this.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any other questions?

M. Coell: Don, who is the lead agency for the plan? In just having a brief look at it, it appears that you've got the Ministry of Health involved. You've got yourselves involved. Where is the final say on most of these decisions? Is it Health or Environment?

D. Fast: It depends on the particular recommendation. As I indicated, we've gone through all of the recommendations. We have identified lead agencies for each recommendation. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has been serving as a coordinator, if you will. So the directors' committee that has been set up is being chaired and facilitated by Environment, Lands and Parks. In terms of the lead agency to be a spokesperson on this issue, we've identified the office of the provincial health officer to be that lead office in reporting to the public and in coordinating government policy on this issue. But on particular recommendations, we have identified -- depending on the subject -- a lead ministry or a lead agency for each one.

M. Coell: Just following up on that, we've talked in the estimates about groundwater legislation and possibly a new water act at some point in the future. Most of what you've presented here would be part of the new act, I would imagine, once you find solutions to the problems that are identified. I realize that you can't comment on it, but I would again encourage the ministry to take this one step further -- and your time lines look like the year 2000 for most of this -- and to have something prepared to bring into the House for a new water act or groundwater legislation.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Just on the lead agency issue, a number of the various people and groups that have written in. . . . I believe the auditor general was calling for -- suggesting -- a lead agency. Is it fair for me, Don, to characterize this as: government has not yet identified one lead agency, but we're still attempting to work in a cooperative effort? Is that a good summary or not?

D. Fast: Again, in terms of the public reporting and of trying to take a lead as far as identifying policy issues and actions, the provincial health officer will be the single office that will provide that focus. In terms of the 26 recommendations, they cover a very broad range of issues and subjects. At this point it was felt best to address those where the expertise, the resources and the mandates exist, whether it be in the Ministry of Forests or Environment, Lands and Parks or, in some cases, Energy and Mines -- involving those agencies that have responsibility for particular recommendations by giving them responsibility for that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): If I could use. . . . The baseball playoffs seem to be onward going into the World Series shortly -- somebody is going into the World Series shortly. In the bottom of the ninth, the home team is losing. Who in this lead agency spectrum is going to call the third strike for the final out in the bottom of the ninth against the home team?

D. Fast: I assume, if it comes to that, it will be the provincial health officer, as the spokesperson to the public and the Legislature, that will address those issues.

M. Coell: Who is at bat?

R. Thorpe (Chair): We don't know who is at bat. He didn't ask whether he was a visitor or the home team.

Okay. If there are no other questions for the Ministry of Environment, then perhaps we could move to the Ministry of Health. You may be happy to know that you're calling the strike in the bottom of the ninth.

B. Smith: Well, I'm not the provincial health officer. I can assure you of that.

All I can really add to what Don said is that the activities between Environment and Health and other ministries

are being coordinated at the director level. The provincial health officer, who I have had several discussions with, will be looking to that group to provide a considerable amount of the information that he will probably need in order to complete his report evaluating how government is doing and the various activities related to drinking water.

The question of resources was raised. I think the resources will, hopefully, be provided from the other ministries coordinately and that the provincial health officer will therefore have the information that he requires in order to complete his report. We were fortunate enough at one time to have a staff member from the Ministry of Environment, who was quite familiar with the corporate policy branch of the ministry and with the program, come over to the Ministry of Health to assist us in this area. We're sharing resources, and I think we have a person that will help provide enough of the report that Health actually requires.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone have any questions?

S. Orcherton: I have a quick question. There's an ongoing monitoring process of water quality. Is that done through the Ministry of Health?

B. Smith: Water quality at the tap is a shared responsibility right now. The larger water systems generally take their own samples, and the smaller samples are picked up by regional health authority staff now. So there's a monitoring of water quality at the tap jointly done.

S. Orcherton: In your view, are we on top of this issue? If there is a problem with the water, will we find out very quickly?

B. Smith: Yes, very quickly. And there are other indicators that they also monitor for, such as turbidity, which impacts on the ability to treat the water. Some of the larger water systems have an ongoing monitoring for turbidity. When that occurs, generally there is a public advisory that goes out -- to boil their water temporarily or whatever means. . . . They keep on it pretty good, and they try to keep the public up to speed on the quality of their water as much as possible.

S. Orcherton: So it's a monitoring process, then, that currently looks after the water quality for British Columbians, through the Ministry of Health. When there is a problem with water, is it picked up in the monitoring process, or is it picked up by somebody going to the hospital and not feeling well?

B. Smith: You're right. Generally, what the monitoring does. . . . It's a background level of water quality. You can get trends and you can results that are bacteriological only. That test will not pick up the presence of oocyst in the water. Those are the parasites that generally create a run, shall we say, to the hospital for necessary treatment. That's quite often how an outbreak will come to your attention. There's not a test presently available that can pick that up in time to prevent an outbreak. It's very difficult and very expensive, and it's basically a manual test right now.

S. Orcherton: Okay, thanks.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Are there any other questions?

The provincial health officer is responsible for communicating with the public to ensure that citizens receive regular, credible reports on the status of their drinking water. Does the ministry have any frequency at which they do that? In other words, my question is: is there a proactive approach where we're letting out timely reports measuring where we are against where we think we should be, or is it reactive -- usually when there's a difficulty?

B. Smith: The monitoring program that I referred to this gentleman here is an ongoing process done in the regions, and the water purveyors are advised immediately of the results. It's an ongoing process in which the results are communicated back to the water purveyor. Then it would also be reactive when you get an outbreak.

R. Thorpe (Chair): What about the citizens? Where do they get a sense of comfort, or is. . . ?

B. Smith: They would be advised only when there was a problem. The onus would be on the purveyor -- the way the legislation is written -- to advise the users of a potential problem. We'll advise the purveyor, and he, through contacts with his users, will advise them if and when there's a problem. If there's a serious problem, the medical health officer will do a public advisory and say: "Your water is not fit for drinking. Boil it until such time as it's rendered fit." The provincial health officer, in his report, proposes to eventually put water-quality data on all 3,700 water systems on the Internet and in hard copy also. The public would have access through the Internet -- those that have that. The information would be available in hard copy through the local health agencies.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The auditor general's report indicates that there are some 100,000 small water systems in the province. From a health perspective, how do we keep on top of some 100,000 small water systems?

B. Smith: We don't have 100,000 on our records. We have permitted and issued operational permits to 3,705. I'm not sure where the other 97,000 came from. It may very well be -- and it could easily be -- just an individual well, maybe, or an individual system may be included. Generally, we don't get involved in those, but we will provide interpretive results to anybody who has a sample analyzed. We don't get involved in the monitoring of those private systems.

R. Thorpe (Chair): George, did you want to make any comment here?

G. Morfitt: No, I don't. I'll just look for that reference and see what it's about.

M. Coell: I'd be interested to know the lead agency for. . . . You both share municipal sewage regulation and the sewage disposal regulation with the Ministry of Health. For those, I think you're trying to identify a number of problems that could help the situation through the UBCM. I just wonder who the lead agency on that particular issue is. If you can, give me an update on what you've accomplished since the spring.

B. Smith: I can answer that. There are two regulations, of course. There's one administered by the Ministry of Environment -- the municipal sewage regs -- and that's already been proclaimed or passed. We are concurrently working on sewage regulations which deal with the smaller individuals. The presentation at UBCM made by my office. . . . There was some criticism of the way that it was going and the content of it. As a result, we have struck a local government committee, which is chaired by. . . . I'm going to have trouble with the gentleman's last name, but he's the director of planning and development for the district of Sechelt. We have a representative from the Cowichan Valley regional district and from the Nanaimo regional district. At UBCM, when Gerald made his presentations, he wanted feedback and participation from other local governments, so he made a plea there that they would free up time if they had an interest to help in that aspect of it.

So we've established a local government committee. We've also established a technical committee, which is chaired by Bob Warman. He works for the capital regional district, so he's outside the ministry. We have participation from stakeholders, industry, the Ministry of Environment and other interested agencies. What we're trying to do now is bring the local government, the industry and us together to come answer the questions and try to resolve the issues. One of the goals is to make our regulation as compatible, where possible, with what has already proclaimed under the municipal sewage regulations.

M. Coell: Do you have a time frame on that particular committee's work?

B. Smith: Yes, we do. We would like to get a. . . . We were hoping to catch up to Environment, but they had a few years head start on us. We're a bit behind, but we hope to have something for consideration early next year.

J. Weisbeck: With over 3,000 systems in the province -- and I know, for example, that the city of Kelowna has a number of systems within its jurisdiction -- would you suggest that by amalgamating some of these systems, it might possibly be a lot easier to control a problem or would administratively be an advantage?

B. Smith: Definitely. Absolutely. I think that one of the concerns -- and it was highlighted in the auditor general's report -- is that a lot of the small systems don't qualify for funding, because they're not a municipally operated system. They lack training; they lack money; they lack resources. If they were willing to amalgamate with a larger system, they would have the ability to seek funding and obviously to hire more staff -- or a staff member; some have no staff member -- and also to provide the necessary training, operation and maintenance. So there is a positive aspect of amalgamation of the smaller water systems.

J. Weisbeck: Do you have any suggestions for how you might do that? Once again looking at the city of Kelowna, you see all these little bureaucracies out there. They're not willing to give up anything.

B. Smith: That's within the city. Imagine what it would be like outside the city.

J. Weisbeck: So do you have any suggestions for how that might happen?

B. Smith: Well, there is a commitment, I think, in our business plan or our work schedule to try to encourage it. We haven't come quite yet to what that might involve, but I think there might be a hope there. Obviously a financial incentive would be one. It's something we'll be working on with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs also and with the Ministry of Environment, because there are various jurisdictions that have some part to do with these improvement districts. Utilities come under other jurisdictions. They need to work with the other ministries to see what options are available.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Whereabouts is that in the action plan?

B. Smith: If it's not, it should be.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It may very well be.

B. Smith: I think it's one of the responses. Again, I couldn't cite the page, but I know it was one of the recommendations of the auditor general that there should be some recognition for small water systems. I think government's response was that we were to try to encourage the amalgamation of them. Is it there?

B. Kangasniemi: Yeah, on the last page -- the water education and public awareness section -- there's a discussion of support for small water systems.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So then it is a priority for amalgamation of various irrigation districts -- whatever they may all be called -- into some kind of a more manageable way of providing water. Do all the ministries agree that that's one of the priorities?

B. Smith: I don't know how we prioritized it in our scheme of things, but it's one of our action plans to try to encourage local governments to take over the operation of small systems.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Well, in that connection, I would strongly urge the working committee to define, as quickly as possible, what the word "encourage" means and entails. I know that right now there are some districts trying to look at amalgamation. And when people use the word encourage and then other people probe what the word encourage means, there seems to be very little understanding or substance behind the word encourage. I think we have to be able to walk the talk, whatever that is. I don't know what the answer is, but that's going to be one of the hurdles that you're going to have to face. So I share that with you.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): This is an area that's of deep interest to me, representing the Comox Valley as I do and with the challenges we have along Baynes Sound. I

have a concern about small waste treatment systems and where that accountability lies over the long run. If it's an independent or privately operated system, how do you ensure that there is accountability back to the public over the long run? Is that a part of the work plan? When you're looking at either amalgamation or support for some of the smaller systems, are you taking a look at that, about the accountability?

B. Smith: I think part of what we're looking at to address some of the concerns that may be associated with, maybe, Baynes Sound -- or some of those areas there -- is that the proposals that we are putting forward will put a higher standard of treatment in the sensitive areas that will help protect shellfish along with drinking water. So that's part of the package of, you know, progressively trying to enhance and improve water quality.

Again, I think that with the Ministry of Environment, we're also cooperatively developing a proposed maintenance bylaw that local government might want to look at. It's also to assist in servicing the number of septic tanks out there -- again, to enhance the quality of the effluent and reduce the possible contamination of shellfish and drinking water. So there are some proactive measures that we are also pursuing to do that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): In a response from the BCWWA drinking water quality committee, they make a statement: "The provincial health officer, although most qualified to administer risk management from a health perspective, lacks sufficient staffing resources and legislative authority to be truly effective." Could you comment on that statement, please?

B. Smith: Sure. I think that the technical component of it. . . . He's looking at a steering committee and an advisory committee. One of the agencies that I think he's considering to provide technical input into it would be BCWWA; they're well recognized in that field.

As far as the authority to implement it, the question there would be. . . . It's up to government to implement, and I think his responsibility under the Health Act is to make recommendations on legislative policy and decisions that could and should be made to enhance public health. If drinking water is a public health issue, then that would be within his mandate.

R. Thorpe (Chair): One of the other comments they make is: "Instead of designating a government lead agency to take responsibility for drinking water interests, it may be more effective to introduce water quality and treatment legislation and make water purveyors responsible, as with the U.S. EPA." Could you comment on that?

B. Smith: We have legislation right now that requires disinfection of all surface drinking water supplies. We have probably 243 water systems that, even though the legislation is there, are not disinfecting their water. We now have a court action before the Supreme Court challenging government's right to impose chlorination. So it's difficult to set a treatment standard and expect everybody to comply with it. I think it's an ongoing educational process.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The auditor general's report said that we haven't set water quality objectives for all of the community watersheds. So if we haven't set those measured objectives or benchmarks, how are we going to measure ourselves? Or, again, is that one of the things that we're hoping to do in the action plan?

B. Smith: That might be better answered by Don, because I think you're talking about watersheds.

D. Fast: I believe there are some 450 community watersheds, and we are developing a streamlined process for trying to set the water quality objectives for those watersheds. So that is one of the action items we're working on.

R. Thorpe (Chair): If there are no other questions in this area, maybe we could move to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

D. Macfarlane: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is interested in this report primarily -- and this has been touched upon by a number of members of the committee -- because of the need to coordinate. You have a whole lot of jurisdictions that have a whole lot of interests, including inside the province, but you also have all the local government interests. So what the report did highlight is that there is a need for better coordination. That would include, I would submit, local government, who not only consider themselves purveyors sometimes -- or are purveyors -- but also, in some cases, suppliers. They in fact control some watersheds or parts of watersheds.

It's of particular interest as well, as Mr. Weisbeck pointed out, that the forms of governance that water purveyors have are generally under the Municipal Act and do need a look. I guess the word amalgamation is a bother at the local government level, but it doesn't have to be as "evil" as amalgamation. The five water purveyors in the city of Kelowna, for example, have a very good internal organization, short of amalgamation, where they do coordinate. So there are a lot of opportunities to be looked at.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Well, it only strikes me. . . . Certainly my experience in the community where I live is that people are very attached to their water purveyor, whoever that might be and whatever that water source might be. People feel very strongly about where their water comes from, and that leads to conflict. When you start to talk about what a better water source might be or whether it would be better to supply a whole area with one water source that could be treated appropriately for the whole area. . . . I mean, that's where you run into arguments about whether or not the supply should be chlorinated and that kind of thing. It's perhaps encouraging to hear about the Kelowna example -- that there is a great deal of cooperation. It doesn't strike me, in particular, that that would be a more generalized example.

Perhaps, then, my question should be: what can the Ministry of Municipal Affairs do to assist smaller communities to work together toward planning for their water needs?

D. Macfarlane: I guess the best tool that the ministry has at this point is regional growth strategies. That way,

you can at least look at a regional level. Oftentimes this involves a specific watershed as well, so it sort of has the effect of bringing together not only the purveyors but a look at an entire watershed. With a regional growth strategy, communities are encouraged to look at areas of servicing that they could provide more effectively together or in some coordinated fashion.

The ministry does strongly encourage appropriate regional districts, usually high-growth areas, to get involved in a regional growth strategy. It offers the province and all the agencies involved in water the ability to deal with a larger unit of local governments as well. It's always easier to deal with bigger guys that are more coordinated than a whole bunch of little units.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I believe your ministry and staff within your ministry work with the irrigation districts. Perhaps you could tell us what your interpretation of the word "encourage" means with respect to working with various irrigation districts in trying to find a better, more effective way to deliver water to people.

D. Macfarlane: I think Mr. Smith hit it pretty well on the head. Resources are a problem for the smaller improvement districts. You balance that against the point someone made about. . . . I think it was the protection of turf, if you like. People get attached to their water suppliers. It presents a real challenge. It's difficult to force independent groups to work together, thus the word "encourage." I think the only way to get them to do it is to show them that technically, it's a good thing. If it's not a good thing technically -- if it doesn't fix some problem -- people aren't going to be encouraged to come together by anything.

As I say, encouraging is hard. We would encourage them to get the right information, to define their issues well and to do this together in order to see if they can find some synergy. It's certainly a lot easier for people to agree to take a course of action than to force them to take a force of action.

R. Thorpe (Chair): In this connection, does the ministry provide both technical and human and/or financial resources to make this process happen?

D. Macfarlane: Again, the way it would work best, in our ministry's present structure, is through the growth strategy process. That offers the resources of a group with the ministry -- as it turns out, I'm in part of it -- to assist regional districts and local governments to get together to take on a strategic planning process and to encourage the implementation of it. A lot of our ministry has now become focused on encouraging coordination amongst local governments on issues like water.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Within your ministry, do you have both the human and the financial resources to discharge that responsibility of bringing people together?

D. Macfarlane: I believe we do. We have developed growth strategies, or are developing growth strategies, in most of the high-growth areas at this time. There are a number that we're still hoping to get involved. Central Okanagan is a great example of a regional district that is taking on the water issue. They highlighted it, as the province did, during the growth strategy development process. I believe they are planning a substantial workshop on water -- which I think may have been spurred a little bit by the auditor general's report -- early in the new year to look at issues like quality of water, watersheds and governance.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Within your ministry, then, do you have a ranking of the areas of priority throughout the province of British Columbia to secure and protect drinking water?

D. Macfarlane: Any high-growth area is of interest. The high-growth areas in the province are generally the east side of Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the Okanagan Basin.

B. Smith: There's another part of the ministry, which I have some access to, that maybe Doug doesn't have access to. There is funding. There are planning grants, which are given through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, that are given out to local governments to plan for water treatment and wastewater treatment. There's a committee of three -- which I sit on, with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- for funding grant applications and infrastructure funding. We try to prioritize those sort of on a high-need basis. At one time, we categorized it as health, environment and old infrastructure, and then development would be the lowest.

There is a structure in there to try to prioritize the grants, and there is indeed funding for doing some studies on water treatment. I'm sure those could also be incorporated or possibly utilized. If there are some communities that want to try to get together, this might facilitate some seed money to get them to go into it.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone have any other questions? Thank you, Doug.

Perhaps then we could move along to the land use coordination office.

D. Fast: The land use coordination office isn't represented today. They were unable to send anyone.

R. Thorpe (Chair): And we had lots of questions for them. No, we didn't.

If we could move, then, to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

R. Schmitt: The Ministry of Energy and Mines is contributing to the interagency directors committee on the various issues. It's probably a much smaller player, really, in the overall action plan.

The auditor general's report had raised one observation that the newly implemented mineral exploration code. . . . It was too early, really, to judge the effectiveness of some of the provisions under the mineral exploration code, as it had basically just come out. But the ministry has a commitment to the ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of some of the practices and standards that are in the

mineral exploration code, and that's currently ongoing. It's somewhat compounded right now by. . . . We're at the bottom of the low cycle in exploration, so there aren't a lot of case studies out there, perhaps, of exploration in community watersheds. That's something that we'll see on an ongoing and dynamic basis, perhaps as much as the Forest Practices Code -- an annual evaluation and updating and improvement of how that aspect of the Mines Act is implemented.

In the northern part of the province, where there's quite a bit of activity in oil and gas exploration, we have quite a number of -- fewer perhaps -- watersheds that feed water for communities. The Oil and Gas Commission has a team of specialists that covers quite a number of jurisdictions and specialties that aid the commission in the timely review and permitting of operations and that has a very extensive background in terms of working in the northeastern part of the province, where there are community water issues involved.

I think that's basically what I have to say.

J. Weisgerber: I have a couple of areas of interest. With respect to drilling activity in the northeast, are you aware of what kinds of precautions there are to protect aquifers? I'm concerned particularly about drilling activity that would go through a drinking water aquifer and then, obviously, much deeper than that. What kinds of protections are there for those aquifers when they're drilled through?

R. Schmitt: I'm going to defer also to my Environment, Lands and Parks colleagues to help here. It probably starts a little bit earlier, when we actually go through the pre-tenuring process to identify areas that might be available for oil and gas exploration and development. As part of the pre-tenuring process, there is a review and inventory of resources and other plans and community information that's available for the area. Much of the groundwater resource-aquifer information that's known should be documented in the pre-tenure planning exercise. At a broad strategic level, before tenure is in fact issued, much of what is known would be available.

During the actual drilling itself. . . . Again, I'm going to have to defer and say that I'm not an oil and gas drilling specialist. I know that the companies are required to keep extensive logs in terms of what they are drilling through -- the different parameters of the geological formations in terms of chemistry and groundwater and these other features.

Don, do you have something to add?

D. Fast: I don't have much to add to that, but I believe they would have experts on site during the drilling practices to make sure that there wasn't leakage into an aquifer and also, if they abandoned a well, that there would be certain capping procedures. I don't have the engineering specifics of those procedures, but I believe they're fairly well established in the industry and fairly widely practised.

J. Weisgerber: Okay. If there was more information available on that, I would be interested in it.

The second area of interest that I have is with respect to pollution of groundwater from storage -- industrial activities, particularly gasoline storage. With the deactivation of service station sites, does anyone have a sense of what kind of effect leakage from underground storage has on aquifers?

D. Fast: We have regulations under the Waste Management Act that address contaminated sites and the remediation and cleanup of those sites. Service stations are certainly one of the more common forms of the problem we have in that area, but we have fairly good standards and fairly good reporting procedures, I think. We're certainly getting a lot of cooperation from the oil and gas industry -- the service station companies -- because of the potential liability down the road. It's in their interests to prevent the contamination of an aquifer. It's much cheaper and more cost-effective to make sure that doesn't happen than if they had to start providing a water supply to somebody or try to clean up and treat the water after the fact. It would be much more expensive. So there are pretty extensive sets of standards and rules under the Waste Management Act to deal with that issue.

J. Weisgerber: My sense is that that deals primarily with soil reclamation. Have there been instances where owners of property have been required to compensate well-water users or to take steps to mitigate pollution in aquifers?

D. Fast: I can't think of a specific case right now. I guess that over the years of working in various jurisdictions, I haven't come across that problem -- where something happens to contaminate a water supply. In cases like that, one course of action is to sometimes provide an interim water supply, even through bottled water, until a new source can be found. That might be drilling into a deeper aquifer until preventive and cleanup measures can be taken. But off the top of my head, I can't think of a specific case in B.C.

B. Smith: There have been a number. Well, not a number, but there have been several wells that have been contaminated with chemicals and gasoline. My understanding -- again, I'm not a groundwater hydrologist -- is that once you've contaminated groundwater with a petrol product (a) you don't drink it because you can taste it, and (b) it's just almost impossible to remediate it. The key is prevention, not necessarily remediation.

J. Weisgerber: Is it a big problem? Is it a small problem? Is it a problem at all?

B. Smith: I think, as the auditor general pointed out in his report, there are some community wells that are potentially exposed to gasoline from gasoline train accidents, because they go fairly close to the wellhead protection area. I think what we're promoting now, with the Ministry of Environment, is that these communities develop an emergency plan to deal with those sorts of situations and that they look at other factors that could impact on groundwater -- like a well catchment area -- so they know what's

there and have planned some sort of protective measure. Prevention is really the only cure for contaminated groundwater.

So there are a couple of measures in place. But as far as the number of wells, my knowledge is that it's very minimal, that have been. . . . Prince George has one, I think. Maybe that's the only one, and maybe the odd private one from their own gasoline in their yard or something. But from our perspective, the Health perspective, it hasn't been a big issue yet.

J. Weisgerber: I've become interested in this issue of decommissioning service station sites. It seems to me that with new tanks that are put in, there's great caution taken to ensure that they won't leak and that there is a fair amount of attention paid when a site is closed down, the tanks are removed and the soil is treated. But I'm also getting the sense that a lot of small, privately owned stations may well be operating because that's the cheapest way to deal with the issue: you continue to operate the station. You don't have to face the problem of cleanup, because that only comes to you when you have a major leak or you close the station. I think that's a fact, but whether or not it represents a problem from a water perspective is really the question that I'm trying to find out.

B. Smith: I honestly can't answer that question, and I say that. . . . I look around, and the stations that I've seen decommissioned are basically in cities with municipal water systems, so again, I think that would shrink the potential magnitude of the problem. But as far as what the magnitude is, I don't know. I don't have the information; I don't know if Don does.

D. Fast: I don't have any statistics off the top of my head in terms of extent of water contamination. My sense is that it's not widespread. I think that in terms of your comment about replacing tanks, there are guidelines that are very well known in the industry. I guess there's a natural incentive to not lose product -- to make sure, you know, that if there are leaks, they are detected and tanks are replaced. Certainly the technology for the tanks these days in terms of fibreglass and what not is advanced over what it was ten or 15 years ago. I don't have data on numbers of wells that may be contaminated. I suspect it's not a widespread problem, although I'm sure there are some.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Well, as we're talking about contamination of groundwater and aquifers, we haven't talked about the Fraser Valley and the nitrate contamination. What is the Ministry of Environment. . . ? I know there has been some movement around some voluntary standards, voluntary compliance. But what's the Ministry of Environment doing on this front where there is nitrate contamination of the water?

D. Fast: We've been working with the Ministry of Agriculture and the agriculture industry in the valley to develop codes of practice and an action plan. They do have some problems there because of the oversupply of manure and fertilizer and just the capacity of the soil to handle that without the fertilizers and the manure nitrates leaching into groundwater. So there are some problems in the aquifers that have been identified, and we've been working with the agricultural industry to address that.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): What's the time frame for that?

D. Fast: I don't have the details. I don't know if staff know what the. . . . I know there are guidelines, and there is an action plan; I just don't have the details with me this morning.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay. Do you know if there's a plan to limit, you know, the number of head per acre or hectare, or something like that? Is that. . . ?

D. Fast: I'm sorry; I'm not familiar with the details of that particular set of guidelines. It deals with the manure management practices, and I'm not sure it goes to the extent of limiting the number of head of animal units on land.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Do you know how I could get a copy of that plan?

D. Fast: Sure, I could look into it.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay.

B. Smith: Can I just add one comment? I think that one of the agencies that's monitoring, of course, is Environment Canada, and my understanding is that the trend in nitrates has been going up. But it's now levelled off, which would indicate that there is some remediation, and there is some benefit from the practices that have been worked out cooperatively.

R. Thorpe (Chair): In that regard, I believe that at our July 6 meeting Mr. Khare had indicated that Environment Canada was about to release a new report on the nitrate levels. Where are we with that? Do we know?

D. Fast: I'm not sure if it's been released or not.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Just check the Hansard from. . . .

D. Fast: Staff believe it has been released, but I don't know for certain.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Perhaps when you're finding out, Don, you could provide the committee with a copy of it, and then we would make sure that members that want a copy get a copy.

Any other questions in this area? Okay, we'll move along to the Ministry of Forests.

G. Webber-Atkins: There were a number of recommendations in the auditor general's report that pertain to forestry and range activities. We are working with the interagency committee -- with Environment, Lands and Parks and Health -- on drinking water. We've been identi-

fied as the lead agency for seven of the recommendations and as an assisting or participating agency in a few others. We intend to address, in a focused way, the recommendations and consider the appropriate response. Whatever the response is, we will certainly identify what action we feel is appropriate.

The report, I think, identified fairly well that there are a great number of controls -- which was the term used in the report -- around water quality in the Forest Practices Code. One of the things mentioned was that they were not fully implemented. In fact, at this point there is only one outstanding provision, which will come into effect on June 15 of next year, and it is a requirement for terrain hazard mapping in all community watersheds. So most of the provisions are in place. With regard to the other recommendations, we will address those over time and, in fairly short order, come up with a workplan that identifies where we intend to go.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone have any questions?

Well, I have a question. "Water quality monitoring is critical for the protection of drinking water. Drinking water sources, such as community watersheds, under the Forest Practices Code. . . ." What monitoring is currently in place, and taking place, under the code? How often do you do that monitoring, and who does the monitoring?

G. Webber-Atkins: The code doesn't specifically require licensees to do water quality monitoring. In fact, some are. I believe some are even engaged in conducting baseline monitoring. MELP may have some comment there as well. At the moment, it's either on a negotiated basis or the licensees may monitor, of their own accord, to ensure that water quality objectives are being met. However, one thing that I must point out is that there are very few water quality objectives set. Very few watersheds have water quality objectives set; therefore very few licensees or operations would have any need of monitoring.

D. Fast: I believe that's one of the issues that we need to address in the action plan. The auditor general did recommend that clear responsibility be assigned for monitoring. We will be working with the Ministry of Forests to address that issue.

J. Weisbeck: This is not for Forestry; it's sort of an overall question for whoever.

We've talked about sort of management units. I'll use the city of Kelowna, because I know that the best. Five separate systems. . . . Now we're talking about the Central Okanagan district doing some initiatives and trying to manage the situation. We have an Okanagan Basin water board that's looking after the whole Okanagan Basin. What's manageable? What sort of units, which would work most efficiently, are we talking about here? We're talking about amalgamation. How far do we amalgamate, and what's the most efficient? What would you suggest? Who has the authority?

D. Fast: That is a fairly broad question. I guess you would look at specific areas and at what made sense there. I'm not sure one size fits all. One of the benefits of doing watershed planning is to involve the different parties in discussions and try to look at their particular situation, make the best sense of it and come forward with the best management system for that particular area. I don't have a particular view on size or what standard might apply in a particular case.

J. Weisbeck: I think it depends where you are -- upstream or downstream.

D. Fast: Well, there's one school of thought that says that you should make people get their drinking water downstream of any discharges they have, because they certainly take care in what they discharge.

B. Kangasniemi: Under the Forest Practices Code, community watersheds are defined as watersheds less than 500 square kilometres. It's generally appreciated that watersheds larger than that are difficult to manage in terms of source-water protection. From the viewpoint of source-water protection, that's a rough rule of thumb. In terms of involvement of the community and preventive measures that address private land activities as well, it's our experience that the smaller the watershed, the more effective those planning tables are in dealing with local conflicts over water use. Generally, under 100 square kilometres is a rule of thumb that we encourage communities to focus on.

M. Coell: I'll just give you an example. In the greater Victoria area, there were private companies that were able to log in the watershed. That's not the case now, but I suspect there are other examples of that throughout the province, where you may have a municipally owned or controlled watershed but next to it is privately owned land. I just wonder what, if any, the plans are for looking at the impacts of those privately owned logging practices on watersheds, and possibly areas of influence or control.

G. Webber-Atkins: For lands which will be covered by the private land forest practices regulation under the Forest Land Reserve Act, there are provisions in the regulation around water quality. There are provisions around riparian management -- not to the same level as the code, but still, provisions for riparian management and managing sedimentation. There is also a process by which a water purveyor who finds problems with water quality can work it out -- with the landowner, primarily, and then there are other stages of dealing with the problem that go through Environment, Lands and Parks and then the Forest Land Commission.

That applies to land that is in the forest land reserve or private managed forest land in the agricultural land reserve. Lands not in either of those designations do not have a process that I'm aware of that would come within the purview of the Forest Land Commission or the Ministry of Forests. That would then become, I believe, a Municipal Affairs set of legislation and Environment legislation. That sort of half-answers your question. In terms of the lands outside of those that are in the Forest Land Commission's jurisdiction, I'd have to defer to Municipal Affairs and Environment, Lands and Parks to answer that.

M. Coell: Just following up, then, Don, is that something that is being coordinated through. . . ? I can see there

are three ministries involved. But in order to solve a potential problem -- and I suspect there are a few out there -- how is that being coordinated?

D. Fast: There are a number of issues that we will be coordinating through the interagency directors committee. The particular issue that you've raised. . . . There would be other concerns as well. If, for example, there are fish in the water, there would be legislation, federally and provincially, to address that. I think there are various means that may not be that direct but would have a bearing on the issue that could be used to provide a level of protection.

M. Coell: Just to follow up on the timing for that, is it a goal that can be accomplished -- to have either a regulation or policy in place within a year? Or is it longer than that?

G. Webber-Atkins: For the private land regulation, it's expected to come into effect on April 1 next year.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess my question is for the auditor general. I've sat here this morning, and I've listened and have read the documentation that was given today and previously. One of the key findings of your report was that the issue was probably being handled in a fairly piecemeal fashion, because there were so many ministries and agencies involved. Aside from the workplan -- which, from what I've heard today, is still missing some key components that haven't been added yet, and that's since April -- I still get the sense that it's still being handled in a piecemeal fashion with perhaps just a little more attention.

I'm curious to hear from the auditor general what his impressions have been, from today and from the discussions that have taken place in the last six months or so, post-publication of your report. Are you feeling better about this, or are you feeling that it's pretty much the same?

G. Morfitt: Well, I think the whole issue of drinking water is one of the most senior issues that we as human beings can tackle. If we don't have clean drinking water, we don't have life. One of our concerns is the fact that it's so important to us and yet we don't have a ministry of drinking water, or we don't have an agency of drinking water, or we don't have somebody whose front-desk responsibility is ensuring that we manage our water properly. Now, we're hearing about issues related to fishing and the use of our rivers. We hear about aquifers that are getting into trouble in the Fraser Valley because of the farming activity that's going on there and all the leaching into the groundwater systems that's going on. There's a whole host of matters -- selling of water or not by the province or by the country. This is a major, major issue in a whole variety of ways, and my concern is that it's not a front-desk issue for the government. It's not being handled as a senior matter by anybody; it's part of something else. Even with the provincial health officer, it's part of something else. It's a part of the big health picture, but it's only one part. So that's the main issue, I think, for myself and my staff -- that is, is there still enough concentration on this absolutely essential resource?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah. I suspect that there isn't, and my listening today and my reading on the issues that are there and how longstanding they've been. . . . Groundwater or drinking water hasn't just become an issue; it's been an issue for decades. And it's probably coming under more stress as the province develops. As we become aware of stresses that are there that we didn't know were there before, as technology changes and science changes, we become more aware of potential stresses that will come in the future. It's just my general impression, sitting here today and listening to the answers and the comments and the way this is being handled, that it's being handled -- and I encourage you to tell me if I'm wrong -- in essentially the same way -- that the various components come together and try to work out some sort of a workplan. But it still doesn't appear to me that it has taken on the importance that was laid out in the report and certainly the importance that we hear from constituents -- as drinking water being an issue.

So I'm curious to be convinced otherwise; I'm not so far yet today. I was sort of curious, George, if you thought anything had changed since you've done your report. But I guess what I'm asking for is for you people to tell me how this is being treated differently from how it was being treated before. Has it moved up the priority scale? Or is it just that this report's come out, and you've had to respond? It's a difficult nut to crack, and people are trying to do it. But do you people feel that you've moved along in cranking this issue up as something that needs to be dealt with? Do you see success?

We don't have targets; I know that the Chair asked about that. There are no deadlines; there are no specific time lines with specific target dates. I'm hearing a lot of soft words. I'm hearing a lot of: "We're working on that. It's in the workplan. We have to consult more. We need to speak with these people. We have to involve the communities." And those are all great things. But I'm not hearing urgency. I'm not hearing that there's a great deal of importance being placed on this -- more than what was being placed before -- other than that the various agencies that in a piecemeal way have previously been responsible for drinking water have had to respond to the auditor's report. So convince me that I'm hearing this wrong.

D. Fast: I don't know if I can convince you, but my observation would be that from my perspective, we are giving this a higher priority. We are devoting more resources to this in my agency anyway. I think one of the important steps that has been taken is to assign the provincial health officer a clear mandate to report on this regularly and to make sure that it isn't forgotten and that the policy issues and actions are reported on and brought before the public and the Legislature.

In terms of the success of our work and our action plans, we have a number of things under development. I suppose the test will be whether the government of the day, a year or two years from now, implements the findings and recommendations that we've put forward. But from a staff point of view, we are devoting resources to this, and we are giving it a higher priority than we would have prior to the auditor general's report.

B. Smith: I'd like to add a little bit to that, particularly further about the lead agency aspect. Needless to say,

we've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the report. I can assure you that the office of the provincial health officer has taken what the government has given him as a very serious responsibility. But previously, perhaps, they had the words "lead agency," and they also had the word "advocate." I think the PHO is also an advocate not only for public health but for the health of the citizens of B.C.

Some of the quotes that come out of the auditor general's report are: ". . .not that a lead agency be added to the list of. . . ." It's not that a lead agency is being added as another government's responsibility; well, it isn't. The provincial health officer is in fact an independent officer that doesn't report to government. He reports to the minister, who has to later report to the Legislature: ". . .improve accountability. . .by taking responsibility for giving legislators a regular overview of the state of drinking-water sources." That's the responsibility they want the lead agency to do, and this person has had responsibility for five reports: ". . .accountability reporting to the Legislative Assembly and the public on drinking-water. . .is weak." Right, but again, by focusing in on the health aspect of drinking water in the report that will be produced, that will go to the Legislature and is a public document. So a lot of the issues relative to taking the lead in drinking water will be covered by the provincial health officer.

I do have a two-page sort of outline summary -- it's only in a very draft stage -- of the issues that he expects to incorporate and include in his report. He has a time line. He wants his first report out in May of next year and one annually after that. He wants information, as I mentioned before, accessible to the public, either through the Internet or through hard copy.

He will be addressing the issue of: is government managing source-water protection? In his capacity under the Health Act, he has a responsibility to make recommendations -- again, to cabinet or the Legislature -- for legislative changes, policy changes and such like that. His role has expanded beyond what you might deem the traditional PHO's function in dealing with other reports. I'm confident that this report, with support from other agencies, will be a comprehensive report, will state how drinking water quality and management issues are being handled, and will be a public report. It will place government accountable -- I hope.

G. Morfitt: Well, I think that's very good. It's going to be helpful to the Legislative Assembly to have that information on a regular basis. It sounds a bit like he's taking my position. In other words, he is now going to report to the Legislative Assembly on the state of our drinking water, and he is going to make recommendations.

The point that I was making earlier is the carrying out of action, and the coordination of the carrying out of action rather than the making of recommendations. I think that's a very helpful step. This issue of who is coordinating the action is the question.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Mr. Smith, did you want to say something?

B. Smith: Do I want to answer that?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes.

B. Smith: The auditor general is absolutely correct. I think that there still is coordination within the interagency directors committee and that they will take. . . . These recommendations, which will also come to the Legislature, will come to the committee. The committee will then, through government -- I guess through the ministries, again, as Don suggested -- make only action plans for consideration.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Would it be possible for you to share the two-page document that you have there, with respect to the subject, with the committee?

B. Smith: I don't see why not -- again, recognizing that it's a draft.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Just write "Draft" on the top of it.

B. Smith: I've only got one copy, but I'd be more than pleased to get it to you.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'm sure Kelly would be pleased to try to get copies for the committee.

M. Coell: Just to follow up on Gary's comments, having sat through the Environment estimates in '96, '97, '98 and '99, we have dealt every year with water protection -- groundwater protection. I think it's more a political priority than a bureaucratic priority, and I think that's probably best discussed when the politicians discuss what we're going to be recommending to the Legislature. I think that will probably give a better answer to what Gary's question is than it being a bureaucratic priority. You're only able to deal with what you're directed to by the politicians in government. So that's how I see the answer to some of Gary's questions.

R. Schmitt: I just want to add a comment also, which may be complementary to your question on the level of priority. Throughout the province we presently continue with the completion of strategic land use plans -- the land and resource management plans that many people are familiar with. When the decision requests are being formulated to move the plans up to government for approval, one of the specific items that those of us that are involved on sort of what we call the approval support team -- which is really representatives from the three or four key agencies that assist the land use coordination office in developing a decision request. . . . We're now specifically looking for reference to water objectives in the various land and resource management plans, in much the same way that we develop those decision requests and specifically look for how those planning processes addressed for example, first nations or how they addressed, you know, timber supply issues and that. We're now specifically saying it's a priority that they also demonstrate to us how they address water. So that's another example, I think, of how we've raised the priority of water at the strategic level.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I have a couple of general questions, and anyone who wants can answer it, please. What jurisdiction has the best standards or the best practices that we know of now with respect to this issue?

B. Smith: Regarding the issue of source-water protection? Well -- and, you know, with my friend here on my right -- probably the Ministry of Health, and I say that because if you ever looked at the Health Act and the regulations made pursuant to the Health Act, they predated the Waste Management Act and the waste management regulations. There's a lot of sections in there, though they're not necessarily being applied, because a jurisdiction has specific. . . . There are sections in there for source-water protection; there are sections in there for taking action against pollution and for prevention on the surface of a body of water. So there's a fair bit of legislation that is currently existing in the Health Act and the sanitary regulations, of which a lot may be outdated in the words. I'll give you an example: one of the sections says that you can be fined for spitting on a tram, so that indicates the error of the legislation. But there is a fair bit of background legislation there.

In reality the health regions have been focusing more on drinking water from the treatment component than they have been from a source-water protection component -- left that to the resource ministries and agencies and their Waste Management Act regulations.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you. Sorry, Erda -- did you want to ask a question?

E. Walsh: I just wanted to know. . . . You've got a couple of pilot projects that are on the go right now: the non-point source water pollution action plan and the groundwater protection plan. When are they going to be complete? When can we expect to hear how they went?

B. Kangasniemi: The non-point source water pollution action plan was released this spring, and it mapped out a number of initiatives that government would take alone. Many of the actions are to be largely carried out in cooperation with other agencies, especially local governments, as non-point source pollution is an issue that is really a land use issue, ensuring that best management practices are applied in a variety of business and land use activities. So really it's an ongoing exercise of education and providing technical advice to businesses and local governments who are making land use decisions.

One of the first steps we plan to take in supporting local government is to put together an advisory team, including local government environmental managers, to take specific measures to communicate technological solutions, case studies and best management practices that are available on a variety of topics related to non-point source pollution. The short answer is that it's an ongoing thing. There is no deadline when it will be done. It's an ongoing practice that communities need to learn about.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: I was going to ask a question about watershed reserves, something I was familiar with up north. There hasn't been a lot of discussion about watershed reserves. It seems to me that that might be a good way to protect some community water supplies. In the Terrace area there has always been discussion, from time to time, about logging it -- and for different reasons. Usually, it's to try to improve the water quality. I know Prince Rupert has a submission in here, where they have basically curtailed recreational use on their reserve. They've also eliminated any logging on it.

I guess my question is, first: does the Ministry of Forests still consider applications on watershed reserves? Maybe some general comment on that. Then, to anybody: if you had the ideal drinking water protection, where would the flashpoints likely be in terms of other resource users? I'm reading this stuff, and I'm thinking that agriculture would certainly be a bit concerned, especially in the Okanagan where they spray pesticides all the time and certainly in the Fraser Valley. Mining would have some concerns in terms of the restrictions that would be placed on it. Certainly forestry would have an interest, because if every community had a watershed reserve, that would probably reduce the available land for forestry. Considering all those other users that are out there, if the ideal system were in place, where would we likely feel the pressure from? Just some general comment on that.

G. Webber-Atkins: I'll address your question about watershed reserves first. I'm afraid I can't give you the answer. I don't know if we receive applications for reserves, how we deal with them if we do or even whether that might come through the Lands licensing process. I can find out the information and provide it to you, but I'm afraid I can't comment right now.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Please provide that information back to the committee, and we'll distribute it.

G. Webber-Atkins: With respect to the effect on forestry of watershed reserves -- by which I'm assuming you would mean no logging whatsoever -- the impact would be considerable with 450 community watersheds, and that's just designated watersheds. Probably most watersheds in B.C. are providing water to one domestic user or another. For example, in the Kootenays, 40 percent of the harvest comes from areas which are designated or used as community watersheds. So you can appreciate that the economic impact would be significant. Our perspective is that it isn't necessary -- that in fact it is possible to carry out harvesting and range use in watersheds in a manner that still maintains water quality at a level appropriate for human consumption.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: Does nobody else want to comment on the general pressures that might result from other users?

D. Fast: I guess it's kind of one of the underlying findings of the auditor's report. There are a number of ministries and agencies involved in the issue, because it affects a lot of different aspects of the work in the province. I took the Chair's question earlier about jurisdiction to mean jurisdiction in other. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): We'll get back to that.

D. Fast: Okay. I can only comment that having worked in other provinces, Ontario and Saskatchewan, it's not unlike what we find here. There are a number of issues around drinking water sources, especially in a province where we have a very active resource sector, whether it's mining or forests or whatever. There are a lot of interested agencies and stakeholders in this issue. It's one of the reasons why I think

we have to be very careful in our analysis and in our recommendations to government -- that we don't fix a small problem and create a much bigger one somewhere else.

There are a lot of different people affected by this issue. It's going to take some time for us to work through all of the recommendations that the auditor has raised. I think we are on the right track with the work and the action plans we have underway. So they're good recommendations from the auditor for us to pursue.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, if we could go back to my question, Mr. Fast. You were absolutely correct on the jurisdiction. I was thinking of non-British Columbia situations. Which jurisdiction do we believe has the best standards or the best practices? And how can we learn from those and apply them to British Columbia?

D. Fast: I don't have an opinion on a best, if you will, but certainly we encourage staff to stay in contact with other jurisdictions so we can learn from their ideas and the things they're doing. Again, I guess just from my own personal involvement in other provinces -- in Ontario and Saskatchewan -- I think. . . . There are different approaches to this problem across the country, but generally, everybody has a multi-agency approach. I suppose, with the advent of the Internet and computers and what not, we're in a better position to scan what goes on elsewhere to try and benefit from the findings and experience of others in this field. I don't have an opinion on a best jurisdiction. I think we try to learn from a variety of places and find where we can improve our own situation and apply it to our particular circumstances.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone else have any comments in that area?

With respect to the action plan and earlier comments of members. . . . I'm making an assumption, so please, someone correct me if it's a wrong assumption. This is a summary. Behind this document, one would suspect that there is a detailed document or documents that people are working on and working toward. Is that the case?

D. Fast: That's correct. One example that was given was the non-point source water pollution action plan. We have further details and further material, and that would be the case for a variety of items.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Would it be possible then, Don, to supply the committee a little bit more detail behind this at an appropriate time so that we can get a better sense of if we're on the right track? How fast the train is moving is, I think, one of the issues. Also, how often does this committee work, and how often are these status reports issued?

D. Fast: The committee is just getting up and running. I expect there will be a meeting in October or early November.

A Voice: Middle of November.

D. Fast: Middle of November. We're looking, probably, for quarterly reporting. That hasn't been finalized by the directors committee yet but probably something like quarterly.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So is it fair for me to conclude that over the next three, four or five months, you anticipate making some significant progress in this area as a follow-up to the auditor general's report?

D. Fast: Well, I can't speak for the other ministries. There are, as I indicated, lead ministries assigned to each recommendation. Certainly with the recommendations that Environment is working on. . . . We're taking these recommendations seriously and are planning to make continuous progress.

R. Thorpe (Chair): In that connection, would it be appropriate for us to have an update to this committee by, say, the end of February? I think everyone here today is expressing their concerns and their overall concerns and follow-up to the auditor general's report. I think there's a sense that we have to move this thing forward. Would it be fair to ask this working committee -- the action plan team -- to come back to this committee by, say, February 28, 2000?

D. Fast: We're available at your pleasure. I'd also just note that the public health officer, I believe, is planning to have his comprehensive report in May. Is that correct?

A Voice: In May.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Are you working on. . . ? I know that Mr. Farrell-Collins raised this issue in the July 6 meeting. Are you, as part of this process, also looking at what you think may be the bigger financial and resource issues that are going to have to be brought to bear? Is that one of the objectives you're trying to achieve with this overall process?

D. Fast: I don't recall the discussion in July. By bigger resource issues, do you mean the broader implications and issues of resource companies and what not that may be affected, or do you mean resources to address the recommendations?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Resources to address the recommendations.

D. Fast: I would assume that each ministry and agency that has a recommendation to deal with is addressing that internally. Certainly we are in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'll just refresh people's memories. On July 6, Mr. Farrell-Collins said: "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 recommendations. Has there been any dollar figure attached, any attempt to do that, or are we still too early in the process. . . ?" L. McAdams -- I'm sorry; I don't remember the individual's first name -- said: $700 million in capital costs and $200 million in operating. . . .

Since that kind of question has been asked. . . . Somewhere down the line this is all going to eventually come to a list of priorities, a list of problems and a costing, if we're going to end up doing anything collectively. So I would hope that that would be one of the products that is going to come out of this action plan, or we're just all going to stop at a wall somewhere.

D. Fast: I think the number you're referring to is a number contained in the auditor general's report in terms of a worst-case scenario. It related to treatment costs that may apply down the road a bit. In terms of the costs of implementing actions respecting these recommendations, it's a bit early for us to have a number related to that. As we develop specific recommendations in our normal course of analyzing options around those recommendations, we would look at the financial implications and the impacts on various affected parties, be they municipalities or businesses.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I too was thinking about the jurisdictional question. It strikes me that any area -- like California perhaps, with a population of 40 million -- might be a better jurisdiction to look at than British Columbia or any Canadian province that has a smaller population -- or to look at Europe and see what kinds of measures have had to be taken when you have an intense population and a limited water supply. We in this room may believe that quality drinking water is the most important issue, but it strikes me that the public only believes that when there's a known threat to the water supply. Other than that, it's not something we think about, and it's certainly not something that we value.

I want to ask you, Doug, if you have any knowledge about the number of jurisdictions in which there is water metering and a charge for water.

D. Macfarlane: I'm sorry -- I don't. I do know it's being encouraged. I know Kamloops has recently committed to it. But I'm not certain, no.

D. Fast: Water pricing is a very controversial issue. We've been involved over the years with federal-provincial committees studying water, and it goes back forever. There are, I think, a lot of issues that. . . . People often don't realize the full cost of water, and metering is certainly one of the ways of making people more aware. In some jurisdictions where there is a water shortage, they are much more aggressive, perhaps, in having metering and higher costs for the water, because it's a built-in conservation measure. Last year we did a fair bit of work with local governments in developing practices and guidelines for water conservation and have made that material available to local governments to use in their own jurisdictions.

In British Columbia, we're very fortunate in having such an abundance of water that's relatively pure and clean. You mentioned California. I think they would love to get their hands on more of our water. Certainly we're very fortunate in the resource we have in British Columbia. I guess that's why the auditor general's report is perhaps very timely, in that we want to protect that resource for the future and to make sure it's sustainable for the province's future use.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I think that the most important work that needs to be done through your directors' committee is the work of education that you spoke to, where there is a cost to protecting our water supply, there is a cost to treating our water supply. And whether that be individual wells or community water supplies, there is a cost at any level. I don't think that that's recognized in the public domain -- that there is a cost to clean water.

D. Fast: I think that's very true. There's a lot of room for education. There are also some real opportunities, I think, in the next years, to follow innovative practices. For example, earlier there was a reference to the municipal sewage regulation, new regulation that government brought into law in the summer of this year. There's now a lot more opportunity for communities to look at innovative practices, like in the city of Vernon, where they will actually have dual system so that they'll be using treated sewage for some outdoor uses and hence save on their treated drinking water supply. You know, I think that's the type of innovation we want to see. There are opportunities to reuse and reclaim a lot of the effluents that we previously just discarded and assumed were waste. In doing that, we can conserve our fresh water supplies and save money as well.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any other questions? Any comments? If there are no other questions, thank you very much. We wish you the best in making sure the train leaves the station. Hopefully, we'll be able to revisit this.

I think it might be useful, when you are issuing your status reports, whenever that may be. . . . If you could make sure that the Clerk of Committees gets a copy, we would circulate that to members. We look forward to seeing you again in the future, to see where we are in making progress on this very complex issue.

Members of the committee, if you would like to meet in the Cedar Room, we could have something, and then we'll reconvene here at 1 o'clock.

G. Morfitt: Mr. Chair, did you want to mention the agenda changes, or. . . ?

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think we can do that at 1 o'clock, when hopefully the Clerk's office will have a new addition for us. It may just be a verbal addition.

The committee adjourned at 11:54 a.m.