Water Sales Issue On Tap

Sunday, August 19, 2007 04:45 AM

The matter of selling well water for profit will be coming back to the Regional District of Fraser Fort George this fall. The issue is going to be up for discussion in September at a session at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting.

The matter first came to light a couple of months ago when a Valemount company asked for permission to establish a water bottling plant. Neighbours complained saying the water would deplete the aquifer which supplies many residents.

The Regional Board of Directors had requested the matter be sent to staff to come up with more information about the legalities. Staff report there are regulations, that through the Water Protection Act, ownership of groundwater is vested in the Provincial government, the same as surface water.

Any business removing water from B.C. in containers larger than 20 litres requires a licence to export water.

At present, there appear to be 5 bulk water licences using surface water sources on the coast, totalling some 260,000,000 gallons of water per year. Interestingly, within our Regional District, the one water bottling plant in existence in the Valemount area, has a licence to transport over 2 million gallons a year by tanker truck to Alberta.

According to the Water Protection Act, no further export licences are permitted to be issued. There are a number of grandfathering sections in the Act, dealing with operations that were existing at the time the Act was proclaimed.

The Village of Valemount has requested the topic of regulation of groundwater to be brought up at a session of the next Union of BC Municipalities meeting. The Regional District staff advise that it would be “reasonable to see what can be learned through this discussion before the Board takes a particular direction on the matter of regulation of groundwater.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 04:45 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on August 19 2007 7:06 AM

With all the discussion on air quality one should expect it won't be too long before air use restrictions come into effect similar to water. The Municipal government is aware how much air pollution a person can generate, so the next step naturally would be to require anyone thinking of having children get a permit from the administration. No permit - no kids.

The administration should favour families that have a history of doing nothing as the ones most likely to get a permit. The selection and permit system would certainly meet the goal of protecting the group over in Valemount that doesn't want anyone dipping water out of their well.

Posted by: owl on August 19 2007 8:14 AM

"doesn't want anyone dipping water out of THEIR well."

You should look closely at the operative word "THEIR".

Whether you are on your own well or on a community well, would you wish to have the water source YOU are tied into tampered with by accessing it to the level where YOU will be retricted to the amount of water you can use? Or where you may have to set up your own testing system to assure that you have safe water?

I have reached the conclusion that there is a common thread to many of your posts. You don't give a chit about other people's problems.

;-)

Posted by: owl on August 19 2007 8:29 AM

"The matter first came to light a couple of months ago when a Valemount company asked for permission to establish a water bottling plant."

then:

"Staff report there are regulations, that through the Water Protection Act, ownership of groundwater is vested in the Provincial government"

and:

"Any business removing water from B.C. in containers larger than 20 litres requires a licence to export water."

We do not have all the information. However, based on the information above, it appears we may have another fly-by-night operation that does not know whose permission is required for what. Although, they may simply be looking for the building permit part of the process and be pursuing the licence separately since the RDFFG is not the source of the licence.

This is an interesting parallel with the pellet plant where PG gave permission to build the plant with the assumption that the MoE would take care of the environmental aspects of the plant.

So why is the RDFFG interested in whether they can get a water licence? That is not their responsibility. Should they not take a laissez faire attitude the same as PG does? Or is the RDFFG actually acting with more prudence in such matters because they feel that ensuring that the people in the RDFFG deserve an oversight on such matters as access to sufficient and relatively pure water, air, etc.?

Posted by: Chester on August 19 2007 9:32 AM

Water and Air must be managed, monitored or controlled by some body who has authority. Otherwise, who knows what the consequences could be? A clean, abundant supply of water is the foundation to life. Ask those who don't have any? Chester

Posted by: owl on August 19 2007 3:01 PM

Air - water - food ..... the essentials of all animal lifeforms, in that order. So don't mess with my right to access .....

Posted by: Chadermando on August 19 2007 3:56 PM

All this talk is pointless because under the new TILMA agreement water regulations would be the lowest common denominator and thus come 2009 the bottling plant could sue through the TILMA tribunal the BC government for $5 million dollars every time the BC government tries to stop them from accessing the water resource based on the least regulated areas covered under TILMA. TILMA then thus validates the new regulations through NAFTA Chapter 11.

For every license to water application made a new lawsuit can be filed and decided on by the TILMA tribunal with out limitation or consolidation of cases until the provincial government submits to the corporate trade tribunal and relinquishes control of regulation of trade and investment in water resources.

Water is specifically covered under TILMA so anything this pro TILMA government says about this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Chadermando on August 19 2007 3:58 PM

The RDFFG is irrelevent once TILMA water clauses kick in in 2009.

Posted by: owl on August 19 2007 4:47 PM

You should be in Montebello protesting ......

Posted by: owl on August 19 2007 4:55 PM

"For every license to water application made a new lawsuit can be filed and decided on by the TILMA tribunal with out limitation or consolidation of cases until the provincial government submits to the corporate trade tribunal and relinquishes control of regulation of trade and investment in water resources."

Good luck to the people trying to get the license. They will be out of business due to legal fees before they even get started. Just because they can take it in front of an administrative tribunal does not mean they will win the case. Until then, no license.

BTW, unfair trade practices and monopoly legislation has been around for many moons and it really has not caused too much hardship.

It will be interesting to see if anyone from Alberta will sue the BC Government for imposing provincial sales taxes when they have non in Alberta, or someone in PG will sue the City of Vancouver for imposing Hotel room taxes when there are none in PG.

;-)

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on August 19 2007 11:22 PM

There is also a common thread in all of "owl" posts, as in mine. Owl has the usual blind spots of those through history that seek to impose their brilliance on those below the salt. I too get tired of owl's drift into socialist ooze that deadens the spirit, so I try to go to the edge of extreme in the other direction. It kind of balances things out a little for the folks on here. God forbid we would ever be owl's subjects. Most country's don't track suicides, although most suicides are able bodied males, but it got so bad in Sweden they had to lighten up on the socialist thing and give people a reason to live again. Too many valuable taxpayer were checking out for good. Not saying owl is bad or anything, just that there is no future following an owl for those of us that don't think we are going to live forever.

Posted by: owl on August 20 2007 10:18 AM

I said "You don't give a chit about other people's problems."

I notice that in your post you very nicely avoided addressing that point So, you are saying that you do care about other people's problems? Careful now, it might ruin your image on here and you may actually have to come up with some rational opinions about something for a change.

As far as socialist tendencies ....

So which part of common interests are you willing to give up?

the list is long �
� public roads rather than toll roads?
� common water well and filtration system rather than private?
� How about at the other end? Just dump it in the river? or how about in the streets like they used to .... or maybe collect it at the door for a fee with private enterprises competing? .. and who makes the regulations as to where the collectors will dump, or burn, or create methane gas for energy?

Where does private enterprise stop and public enterprise begin? Oops, sorry ... you prefer the socialism word for public enterprise .... okay .. so where does socialist enterprise begin for you YDPC ... and why is that the cutoff point?

Posted by: owl on August 20 2007 10:58 AM

"it got so bad in Sweden they had to lighten up on the socialist thing and give people a reason to live again."

And you actually believe that. Did you ever take the time to check that out yourself? Or are you merely regurgitating someone else's dribble?

WHO stats on suicides:
� Philippines (1993) - 2.5 males 1.7 females
� Argentina (1996) - 9.9 males 3 females
� Brazil (1995) - 6.6 males 1.8 females
� UK (1999) - 11.8 males 3.3 females
� Netherlands (1999) � males 13 females 6.3
� China (urban)(1999) - 13 males 14.8 females
� Canada (1998) - 19.5/100,000 males 5.1 for females
� USA (1999) - 17.6 males 4.1 females
� Sweden (1999) - 19.7 males 8.0 females
� Belgium (1996) - 29.4 males 10.7 females
� Japan (1999) - 36.5 males 14.1 females
� Russia (2000) - 70.6 males 11.9 females
� Lithuania (2000) - 75.6 males 16.1 females

So, based on those statistics, what do you think is the single most rigorous indicator of a society�s tendency to a high suicide rate?

Specifically, when doing you analysis take a look at some of the major variations such as Belgium which has a rate more than double that of the Netherlands which is right next door and has very similar government policies and shares a similar ethnic background for the eastern part of the country?

Come on, get serious for a while YDPC. Show us that you can do it!!

Posted by: owl on August 20 2007 2:51 PM

Maybe this will help in your deliberations YDPC ...

"Dr. Forbes Winslow wrote in 1840 that the increase in suicide was due to socialism, and particularly, Tom Paine's Age of Reason."

So ... the notion that suicide rates and socialism are correlated actually go back at least one and a half centuries.

He did not, however, stop there, since he found other reasons for suicide as well.

Additional causes he cited were "atmospheric moisture" and masturbation, "a certain secret vice which, we are afraid, is practised to an enormous extent in our public schools." He recommended cold showers and laxatives.

So, obviously you and I have not succumbed to suicide quite yet since we both take lots of cold showers and eat our vegies.

As far as atmospheric moisture goes .... we should check to see if the suicide rate in North Van in higher than in White Rock where there is one third of the percipitation.

;-)

Posted by: owl on August 20 2007 2:53 PM

BTW .... we may need to switch from those sicialist public schools to private schools, especially those run by priests .... that ought to go a long way to stopping suicide.

;-)