FINAL REPORT:
Panel Review of
British Columbia's
Drinking Water
Protection Act
February 13, 2002
Submitted to:
The Honourable Joyce Murray,
Minister of Water, Land and
Air Protection
and
The Honourable Colin Hansen,
Minister of Health Services
c/o Fraser Basin Council
1st Floor, 470 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1V5
Tel: (Toll Free) 1-877-882-1284
Tel: (Van) 604-488-5352
Fax: 604-488-5351
Email:dwrp@fraserbasin.bc.ca
February 13, 2002
Honourable Joyce Murray
Honourable Colin Hansen
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
Ministry of Health Services
Room 124, Parliament Buildings
Room 337, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BCV8V 1X4
Victoria, BCV8W 9E2
Dear Ministers Murray and Hansen,
In accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Drinking Water Review Panel, the
Panel is pleased to submit its Final Report. Consistent with the Terms of Reference, this
Final Report provides recommendations on the completeness, effectiveness and
efficiency of the Drinking Water Protection Act legislation and amendments to the Water
Act passed in April 2001. The Report also includes recommendations relating to
implementation of the Act.
During the course of its review, the Panel received approximately 270 submissions from
many provincial institutions and members of the public. This interest represents
significant support for the provincial government to establish a strong and effective
Drinking Water Protection Act that ensures safe drinking water for all British
Columbians.
We thank you for the opportunity to be engaged in this important process.
Yours Sincerely,
David Marshall
Chair
Drinking Water Review Panel
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page
i
Executive Summary
The Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Health Services established an
independent review panel in September 2001 to review the Drinking Water Protection
Act , passed in April 2001. The Drinking Water Review Panel has completed its mandate
by preparing an Interim Report in December 2001 and this Final Report.
In conducting its review, the Panel invited and reviewed a total of 153 written
submissions and 117 completed surveys. The Panel thanks those who participated and
acknowledges the value of their contributions.
During the course of the review, the Panel became increasingly aware of the risks to
drinking water sources and systems in BC: e.g., source protection is not adequate and
may result in expensive water treatment infrastructure improvements, the province has
the highest rate of disease outbreaks in Canada and the second oldest water system
infrastructure. Many communities have an urgent need and no funding for adequate
water treatment and filtration. The Panel learned from the Walkerton tragedy that the
human and economic costs of disease outbreaks can be horrific. It has become clear to
the Panel that these risks cannot be ignored.
The Panel reached the conclusion that British Columbians are using too much water
and paying too little for tap water. It is time that everyone paid the full price of protecting
drinking water sources and building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to treat
and deliver safe drinking water. It is clear that more funding is needed to reduce the
risks to drinking water and pay for the protection everyone deserves. The Panel strongly
believes that a collective approach to protecting drinking water is essential: everyone
has a contribution to make.
The Panel applauds the contribution made by public health and environment officials
who have worked tirelessly with the existing mix of legislation, primarily the Safe
Drinking Water Regulation and the Water Act. Great improvements have been made
over the past decade; however, fine-tuning of the previous mix of legislation is not an
option because it focuses exclusively on water systems, and does not adequately
consider water sources.
The Panel's overall conclusion is that the Province of British Columbia urgently needs
the consolidated legislation that the Drinking Water Protection Act provides. The
previous mix of legislation made great strides in improving drinking water systems. The
Drinking Water Protection Act , with amendments recommended by the Panel, will
extend this success into the protection of drinking water sources.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page
ii
This Final Report includes recommendations for improvements to the Drinking Water
Protection Act , a process to develop and revise regulations, and to address
implementation issues. The highest priority recommendations in this report call for:
1. Introduction of the amended Drinking Water Protection Act in the Spring 2002
legislative session,
2. Creation of a single Drinking Water Protection Agency reporting directly to the
Minister of Health Planning,
3. Strengthening of drinking water source protection measures,
4. Province-wide screening risk assessments of water systems to identify and
prioritise critical drinking water supply areas,
5. Creation of a dedicated drinking water protection surcharge applying to a
range of user fees, and
6. Development of a comprehensive infrastructure funding program.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page
iii
Acknowledgements
The Panel would like to thank the 270 individuals and organizations who contributed to
the effectiveness of the Panel's review by taking the time and effort to prepare written
submissions and complete surveys. Input was received from every region of the
province, reflecting a wide range of interests related to drinking water protection. The
input received was thoughtful, constructive and very helpful to the Panel in conducting
its review of the Drinking Water Protection Act .
The Panel also thanks Patricia Howie of Praxis Pacific for her dedication and
professional expertise which enabled the Panel to fulfill its requirements in a timely
fashion. The Panel members especially acknowledge her outstanding work in assisting
them to prepare the Summary of Public Input to the Drinking Water Review Panel, the
Interim Report and this, the Panel's Final Report.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents....................................................................................................... iv
Many Voices, One Call................................................................................................ 1
Taking Stock of the Risks.......................................................................................... 1
Mandate and Process................................................................................................. 3
Panel Process .......................................................................................................... 4
Fulfilling the Mandate.............................................................................................. 4
Lessons From Part One of the Walkerton Inquiry.................................................. 6
Overall Conclusion and Recommendation.............................................................. 6
Panel Recommendations ........................................................................................... 7
Authority ................................................................................................................... 7
Source Protection .................................................................................................. 12
Assessment Process ............................................................................................. 15
Drinking Water Officers......................................................................................... 16
Small Systems ....................................................................................................... 17
Tap Water Standards............................................................................................ 19
Water Treatment and Distribution Standards....................................................... 20
Drinking Water Protection Plans........................................................................... 21
Water Use Conservation and Efficiency............................................................... 22
Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 24
Scope of the Act.................................................................................................... 25
Opportunity For Appeal......................................................................................... 26
Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations.............................................. 26
Community Right To Know.................................................................................... 27
Funding Issues ...................................................................................................... 28
Regulatory Development and Amendment Process............................................ 31
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Panel Terms of Reference
Appendix B: Panel Members
Appendix C: Streamlining Act and Consolidating Regulations
Appendix D: Expert Working Groups
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 1
Many Voices, One Call
Drinking Water is on the minds of all British Columbians today as they turn on the tap,
read the morning newspaper, hear of new boil-water advisories and buy bottled water in
ever-increasing numbers. This heightened awareness has come about, in part, from the
tragic events in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, where people
died or suffered illness because of their drinking water. But even before these events
sprang into the national consciousness, British Columbians voiced concerns about
drinking water and called for better legislation.
The provincial government initiated public discussion of water policies and legislation in
1993 in a program called Stewardship of the Water. This province-wide public
consultation process addressed issues of water quality, but also water pricing,
allocation, licensing, conservation, export, and planning. Since that time, many nongovernment
organizations and local governments have engaged the public in multi-
stakeholder processes to identify and resolve water quality issues.
At the beginning of 2001, the provincial government held a series of 11 workshops and
public meetings throughout the province to listen to public views on a Drinking Water
Protection Plan. This Plan and the results of the corresponding consultation formed the
basis of the Drinking Water Protection Act ( DWPA ) passed in April 2001.
The Drinking Water Review Panel is part of the continuum of dialogue with British
Columbians about drinking water. The Panel process was initiated following
development of the Drinking Water Protection Act and has the benefit of knowledge
gained in these earlier consultation processes.
Taken together, the voices of British Columbians - channelled through various public
open houses, workshops, meetings, surveys, and letters - called for a better system of
legislated safeguards for drinking water. Factors such as high rates of waterborne
disease, global warming, increased population, expansion of resource and community
development into water source areas, and reduced availability of new drinking water
sources have resulted in demands to take action now, before matters get worse.
Taking Stock of the Risks
Before focusing on how to improve and implement legislation designed to safeguard
drinking water, it is important to fully understand what the risks are and why drinking
water deserves its own Act and expenditure of limited resources.
The rationale begins with the Auditor General's conclusion in 1999 that "the Province is
not adequately protecting drinking water sources from human-related impacts, and that
this could have significant cost implications in the future for the Province, for municipal
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 2
and regional governments, and for citizens in general.1" He also considered the cost of
neglecting drinking water sources by estimating that the cost to add filtration to
municipalities outside Victoria and Vancouver would amount to $700 million in capital
costs and $30 million annually in ongoing costs.
Other health and economic benefits of protecting sources were identified by the Auditor
General; including reduction in the levels of water-related illnesses and outbreaks,
associated cost reductions related to health care and sick days for those suffering
illness, and the avoidance of negative publicity that could affect tourism.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Walkerton tragedy where the human
impacts were staggering, with seven lives lost and more than 2300 illnesses. A study
commissioned by the Walkerton Inquiry concluded that the tangible costs of the incident
were over $64 million2.. For example, the direct costs stemmed from the eight months
that homes and businesses could not use municipal water, disinfection of the entire
supply system (from wells to kitchen taps), loss of local businesses, loss of property
values, overburdened health units, and investigative units charged with determining the
cause and transmission of the outbreak. It also included $9 million estimated for the
Walkerton Inquiry and nearly $10 million to remediate and repair the water supply
system. The intangible costs associated with the unimaginable human suffering are not
quantifiable and therefore not included in these direct costs. However, the same study
estimated that society would be willing to spend an additional $91 million to prevent
future loss of life and illness similar to what the community of Walkerton suffered (for a
total cost of more than $155 million).
Closer to home and more recently, the Provincial Health Officer issued his 2000 Annual
Report, focusing on drinking water3. The report opens with a statement that BC has the
highest rate of intestinal illness of all Canadian provinces and that "Since 1980, there
have been 29 confirmed waterborne disease outbreaks in BC caused by such microorganisms
as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Toxoplasma and Campylobacter ."
Recommendations were made to improve treatment and add filtration where necessary
to safeguard against these micro-organisms.
Bad news about water treatment infrastructure is also found in the 1996 Report on the
State of Municipal Infrastructure in Canada indicating that on average, BC's water
distribution and supply systems were the second oldest in the nation, with an average
age of 37 years (the expected life span for mechanical systems is 25 years)4.
1
Auditor General's Report, 1998/1999 - Report 5: Protecting Drinking-Water Sources
2
The Economic Costs of the Walkerton Crisis, The Walkerton Inquiry, Commissioned Paper 14, John
Livernois, Preprint, Toronto, 2001.
3
Provincial Health Officers' Annual Report 2000, Drinking Water in British Columbia: The Public Health
Perspective.
4
McGill University. 1996. Report on the State of Municipal Infrastructure in Canada. Commissioned by
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 3
The lessons are clear:
1. Source protection in BC is not adequate and may result in expensive water
treatment costs,
2. The human and economic costs of disease outbreaks such as the one
experienced by the community of Walkerton are horrific,
3. BC has the highest rate of disease outbreaks in Canada and the second oldest
water system infrastructure.
4. More funding is required to build and upgrade water treatment infrastructure.
Indeed, the risks of not taking dramatic action now are too large to ignore.
Mandate and Process
An independent Drinking Water Review Panel was appointed September 25, 2001 by
the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP), and Health Services (HS), to
review the Drinking Water Protection Act and make recommendations to government on
the completeness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Act, which was passed in April
2001 (see Appendix A for Panel Terms of Reference). These recommendations will be
used to confirm, amend or repeal the legislation and guide implementation. The Panel
was asked to address the following four matters:
1. The core Drinking Water Protection Act (Sections 1-49 of Bill 20) that will be
administered by Health Services.
2. The amendments to the Water Act for groundwater protection (i.e., Section 98 of
Bill 20) that will be administered by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection.
3. The principles for developing and revising regulations (including the Safe
Drinking Water Regulation - SDWR) and implementing new regulatory
requirements.
4. Specific implementation issues identified by the Ministers of WLAP and HS, e.g.,
strategic alternatives to funding infrastructure, safeguarding small systems and
the best framework to protect groundwater resources.
An Interim Report was submitted to government and the public on December 14, 2001
reporting on items 1 and 2 above, the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and
groundwater legislation, including draft recommendations for the spring legislative
session.
This final report contains and builds on the material covered in the Interim Report, and
addresses items 3 and 4 above (a process for making changes to regulations and
implementation issues). Implementation issues are addressed throughout the report
where they are relevant and a separate section has been included to address a process
for developing and revising regulations. Where there are differences between the
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 4
Interim Report and the Final Report, the Final Report should be taken as the Panel's
final word.
Panel Process
David Marshall, Executive Director of the Fraser Basin Council, chairs the nine-member
Panel that has representation of public health, environmental, industry and local
government interests (see Appendix B for information on Panel members).
To assist with the review of Bill 20, the Panel invited input by sending 1,934 letters on
October 5, 2001 to all those who participated in the public consultation process used to
develop the DWPA in January through March, 2001. News releases were issued on
September 25 and November 6, 2001 and material was posted on the Panel web-site
( http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/dw/ ). The invitation outlined three ways to participate:
• Obtain and review the legislation (made available on the web-page or by calling
the Panel's toll-free number);
• Complete a five-page survey on paper or on-line by November 9, 2001; and/or
• Provide written submissions by November 9, 2001.
In total, the Panel received 76 written submissions and 117 completed surveys before
completing the Interim Report. The input from these sources is summarized in a
companion report, "Summary of Public Input to the Drinking Water Review Panel", to
assist in the Panel deliberations.
The Panel's Interim Report included an invitation to submit further comments on the
DWPA or on the Panel's interim recommendations by a deadline of January 15, 2002.
This proved to be an excellent opportunity for the Panel to refine its recommendations in
light of valuable input from experts and lay people alike. An additional 77 written
submissions were received between November 30, 2001 and January 15, 2002. These
submissions are contained in the public file and were considered by the Panel in
preparing this final report. The Panel also interviewed selected experts to assist in the
review of the Act and submissions to the Panel. Notes of these telephone interviews are
contained in the public file.
Due to the time constraints on the panel review, the Panel has not been able to fully
explore some matters in detail, including the relationship between the DWPA and other
legislation that may affect implementation of the DWPA; a cost-benefit analysis of the
Act and its implementation; and an analysis of infrastructure funding alternatives.
Fulfilling the Mandate
The Panel was given direction in its terms of reference to conduct this review of the
Drinking Water Protection Act with many conditions in mind. The Drinking Water
Protection Act , together with the Panel's recommendations, meets the following
conditions.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 5
Complete
Source protection measures were added to complement the
existing water treatment measures. Tap water and treatment
standards, water use conservation, allowance for public and First
Nations involvement and community right to know were also added
to make the DWPA complete.
Effective
Enhanced coordination in the management and protection of
drinking water will reduce duplication and conflict between those
responsible for water quality.
Efficient
A single agency that makes use of existing resources and provides
one window for drinking water will increase efficiencies. Also, costly
and time-consuming water quality problems will be prevented by
conducting assessments and protecting sources.
Risk Management The source and system assessments and assessment response
Approach
plans form the basis of the risk management approach. High
priority issues will be identified and addressed. A risk management
approach has also been recommended for addressing
infrastructure funding issues and developing regulations
Cost-EffectiveRecommendations for water conservation will reduce infrastructure
costs in the future and new funding sources, through cost-recovery
programs, will help meet current funding limitations. Use of existing
provincial resources wherever possible has also been
recommended.
Streamlined
The DWPA and the single agency will streamline the legislation,
regulations and administrative functions. The single agency
provides a singly policy focus, raises the importance of drinking
water as a resource and enhances public confidence in
government's ability to safeguard drinking water.
Results-based
Principles for developing regulations include an outcome-
orientation. The assessment and assessment response plans also
follow the result-based approach.
Measurable GoalsThe Panel recommends standards for water treatment and tap
water - both providing measurable goals that will safeguard
drinking water.
Defined
The Panel has recommended clear accountability for drinking
Responsibility
water, including Drinking Water Officers in the regions, the CEO
and Board of Directors within the Drinking Water Protection Agency
and the Minister of Health Planning as the minister responsible for
implementation of the Act.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 6
Lessons From Part One of the Walkerton Inquiry
Just prior to completion of the Panel's mandate, the Honourable Dennis R. O'Connor
released his Report on Part One of the Walkerton Inquiry, the results of nine months of
hearings. Some of the key issues identified in the Walkerton Inquiry and also addressed
in the Drinking Water Protection Act and the amendments recommended in this Panel
report are highlighted below.
The importance of and need for:
• A rigorous water quality monitoring and enforcement system,
• operator training and certification,
• understanding of the threats to groundwater from surface contaminants,
particularly shallow wells,
• immediate public notification when test results indicate public health threats,
• direct involvement of the Medical Health Officer in drinking water matters,
• clear accountability when systems fail,
• better coordination and communication between health officials and environment
officials,
• a clearly understood public notification system in the event of poor water quality
results,
• maintenance of a database of water sources and systems and their monitoring
results, and
• a thorough assessment of the environment and human health risks prior to
proceeding with massive provincial government budget reductions in programs
that affect drinking water.
Overall Conclusion and Recommendation
The Panel believes that Bill 20, the Drinking Water Protection Act , has a number of
strong elements and provides a useful framework for bringing together a range of
legislative measures related to drinking water. It also gives drinking water the high level
of priority and focus it deserves. Other key strengths of the legislation are source and
system assessments, new measures for source protection and planning, water system
operator certification, the creation of Drinking Water Officers, continuation of the vital
role played by public health officials, the ability to create drinking water standards, new
measures to protect groundwater and the requirements for reporting and notification.
British Columbia needs this legislation. While the Panel applauds the significant
improvement in drinking water made by public health officials using authority in the Safe
Drinking Water Regulation enacted in 1992, fine-tuning of the previous mix of legislation
is not an option because it focuses exclusively on water systems, and does not
adequately consider water sources.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 7
The Panel is confident that with some specific amendments identified below, the
legislation will prove to be a workable and effective tool for safeguarding drinking water
in British Columbia.
Recommendation 1: Amend the Drinking Water Protection Act
Retain the Drinking Water Protection Act as a stand-alone Act, amend the
Act by incorporating the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review
Panel, and introduce the amended Act in the 2002 spring session of the BC
legislature.
Panel Recommendations
Recommendations in this report refer to the Drinking Water Protection Act specifically
and also to related implementation issues. The bulk of the report refers to components
of the Act and includes a mix of recommended changes to the legislation and to
implementation of those changes. At the end of the report there are two sections that
refer specifically to implementation issues rather than to a single component of the Act:
they are funding and developing regulations. Issues regarding the Act are placed in
sequence, beginning with the highest priority issues and recommendations.
Authority
Responsibility for drinking water is currently shared between at least ten provincial
ministries, with the Ministries of Health Services; Health Planning; Water, Air and Land
Protection; and Sustainable Resource Management having the primary roles. The
Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning are responsible for broad health
matters. Local public health officials deal with specific public health issues and report to
regional health boards. The Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection is responsible for
protection of water sources and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is
responsible for water allocation (including licences for water use).
Management of drinking water in British Columbia has been criticised for having a
history of inter-ministry turf wars, confusion and conflicts. There have been calls from
the Auditor General (1999), the Provincial Health Officer (2001), participants in the
Drinking Water Protection Plan consultations (Jan. - Mar. 2001) and participants in this
legislative review process for better coordination amongst all players, clear
responsibilities and accountability, and a single point of contact for the public. Many of
these voices have suggested the creation of a single lead agency to take on this role.
The current DWPA retains the split responsibilities and creates two Provincial Drinking
Water Coordinators, who would report to two different ministers, one to the Minister of
Health Services, and the other to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 8
The Panel believes that this framework will perpetuate the lack of coordination and
confusion regarding responsibility and accountability. A single lead agency with a clear
mandate and functions is required. This agency must be created at the highest level of
government with the highest level of power to give safe drinking water the priority it
deserves.
The Panel gave considerable attention to the question of accountability and who should
be responsible for implementation of the DWPA. The Panel believes that ultimately all
drinking water issues, whether related to drinking water sources or systems, are a
public health matter and responsibility. Because all matters related to health protection
and prevention recently shifted from Health Services to Health Planning, the Panel
believes that the Minister of Health Planning is the appropriate minister responsible for
implementation of the Act.
Recommendation 2: Appoint the Minister of Health Planning as the Minister
Responsible For the Drinking Water Protection Act.
Recommendation 3: Create a Drinking Water Protection Agency
a) Create a single lead Drinking Water Protection Agency reporting to the
Minister of Health Planning, to integrate the skills, resources and authority
of all provincial ministries with responsibility for drinking water protection.
The purpose of this agency will be to administer and implement the Drinking
Water Protection Act . Bringing all responsibility under one agency will result in
clear authority and accountability for drinking water, from source to tap. A single
agency will act as "one window" to the provincial government for the public when
they have questions or concerns regarding drinking water issues or
implementation of the Drinking Water Protection Act . This agency will be multidisciplinary,
recognizing that expertise in protecting water sources and water
systems are both complementary and vital to implementation of the Act.
The mission of the Agency will be to ensure that drinking water in BC is safe.
b) Appoint a Chief Executive Officer to lead the Drinking Water Protection
Agency.
c) Create a Board of Directors reflecting the following composition:
• Four provincial government appointees (Deputy Ministers of
Sustainable Resource Management; Water, Land and Air Protection;
Health Services/Health Planning; and Community, Aboriginal and
Women's' Services),
• One First Nation representative,
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 9
• Two purveyor representatives (Union of BC Municipalities and one
purveyor representative),
• Two public representatives (reflecting health, environmental, and
surface and groundwater interests), and
• Two watershed resource industry representatives (e.g., forestry and
agriculture).
The Board will provide strategic direction to the Drinking Water Protection
Agency. The diverse composition of the Board reflects the importance of
balancing the use of watersheds and sharing responsibility for protecting drinking
water. Board members will have a collective responsibility, bringing their
respective expertise and interests to bear on implementation of the Drinking
Water Protection Act . This model of shared decision-making should go a long
way toward ending the legacy of resource use conflicts and forge a new process
for shared stewardship of our drinking water supplies. Board members will elect
their chair and adopt decision-making and dispute resolution processes.
d) Create a Technical Advisory Committee of three to four drinking water
experts to provide ongoing advice to the Director of Policy and Planning on
a voluntary basis .
A major purpose of the committee will be to oversee development of regulations
and standards pursuant to the DWPA. The Provincial Health Officer will chair the
Technical Advisory Committee. Expert Working Groups will be struck by the
Technical Advisory Committee when specific tasks arise that require expert
advice (See Appendix D for a list of expert working groups recommended in this
report) and chaired by a member of the Technical Advisory Committee. The
working group members will reflect an appropriate range of expertise to
accomplish specific tasks.
e) Form the Drinking Water Protection Agency as a separate agency reporting
to the Minister of Health Planning.
The CEO (Deputy Minister level) will report to the Minister, seeking advice from
the Provincial Health Officer and the Board of Directors . The CEO will coordinate
four Directors (ADM level) with responsibility for Operations, Finance, Policy and
Planning, and Reporting and Evaluation. Drinking Water Officers (Senior Medical
Health Officers) will be responsible for implementation of the Act in each of the
five Health Regions (one per region). The Provincial Health Officer will chair a
Technical Advisory Committee that provides advice to the Director of Policy and
Planning. A proposed organization structure is shown below. The Provincial
Health Officer also has a functional relationship to the Senior Medical Health
Officers who will be appointed as Drinking Water Officers. See organization chart
below.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 10
Drinking Water Protection Agency
Organizational Structure
Minister of Health
Planning
Provincial Health
Officer
Chief Executive Officer
Board of Directors
Director,
Operations
Director, Finance
and Administration
Director, Policy
and Planning
Director, Reporting
and Evaluation
DWO's / SMHO's
(1 per Health Region)
Technical Advisory
Committee
(PHO, Chair)
Multi-Disciplinary
Implementation
Team
(1 or more per
region as required)
DWO
= Drinking Water Officer
SMHO
= Senior Medical Health Officer
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 11
f) Keep administrative costs down by minimizing the need for new staff (e.g.,
access experienced provincial government staff in existing positions to
assist the agency, use contractor expertise where appropriate, follow a
shared service model by setting up agreements with others to deliver
services, such as using other ministries and local government.
g) Delete all references in the Act to the Drinking Water Coordinators and
Drinking Water Advisory Committees as their duties are covered by the
structure recommended above.
h) Include the following principles in the Agency mandate:
• Focus activities in the regions (de-centralize)
• Coordinate activities to minimize overlap with those inside and outside
the Agency
• Maintain clear accountability of decision makers
• Provide timely access to services and timely resolution of concerns
brought to the Agency
• Allocate resources in a fair manner
• Remain open and transparent to the public and involve the public in
planning and decision making when appropriate
Recommendation 4: Give the Agency a Strong Mandate to Protect Drinking Water
Include the following functions in the mandate of the Drinking Water Protection
Agency:
a) Develop and oversee an overall strategy for drinking water protection from
source to tap;
b) Oversee and evaluate effectiveness of the implementation and enforcement
of provincial drinking water protection legislation;
c) Coordinate the preparation of assessments and assessment response
plans;
d) Coordinate development, periodic review and revision of standards
respecting surface water protection, groundwater protection and water
system performance;
e) Coordinate development and review of drinking water-related policy from
source to tap;
f) Coordinate development of a strategy for water purveyor certification;
g) Coordinate development of a certification program for well drillers and well
technicians.
h) Coordinate development of a public education and outreach program;
i) Carry out coordination/communications between agencies and other
provincial and intergovernmental initiatives;
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 12
j) Report annually to the legislature and public on the state of British
Columbia's drinking water;
k) Coordinate design of an integrated data management system, including
water use, supply, public health information, source protection, standards
and monitoring, and ensure ongoing maintenance;
l) Administer conservation, financial and technical assistance programs for
local governments and small water service agencies;
m) Develop a research and development strategy, fund and co-ordinate
implementation;
n) Coordinate the review of sub-division applications with respect to drinking
water matters, including non-point-source pollution of water sources and
availability of drinking water supply;
o) Coordinate water allocation and licensing in drinking water supply areas;
p) Coordinate development of a provincial water conservation program
("water smart");
q) Review all the provincial laws that affect the quality and quantity of
drinking water, how those laws contribute to or detract from control of nonpoint
source pollution and protection of drinking water, and make
recommendations to reform these laws to improve drinking water
protection; and
r) Maintain ongoing interaction with other jurisdictions to keep abreast of
their experiences and lessons learned related to drinking water protection.
Source Protection
British Columbian's receive their supply of drinking water primarily from surface sources
(75%), including reservoirs, lakes, rivers, streams and creeks and also from
groundwater sources (25%). The Panel heard in many submissions that the safety of
drinking supply watersheds and aquifers is threatened by multiple uses in the
surrounding area, such as forestry activity (including logging, road building and
chemical application), agriculture (including cattle grazing and manure and chemical
application), urban and subdivision development, septic systems, road transportation,
recreation (including swimming and motorized activities), wildlife and mining. Non-point-
sources, including stormwater runoff, septic system leakages, and drainage systems
are increasingly recognized as important contributors to water quality degradation.
In his 1999 report, the Auditor General concluded that, "…the Province is not
adequately protecting drinking-water sources from human-related impacts". The report
goes on to suggest that it is more cost effective to protect water sources than to treat
contaminated water. The Provincial Health Officer's Report (2001) goes further to
suggest that, "If companies or groups degrade the source water quality, they must bear
the responsibility and cost of returning water to its original state."
The DWPA has introduced new measures to assist with source protection e.g.,
assessments, assessment response plans (Part 3), drinking water protection measures
(Part 4) and drinking water protection plans (Part 5). Many of the submissions to the
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 13
Panel indicated that source protection is not strong enough in the Act, particularly in
relation to multiple uses. Some suggested that drinking water should have primacy over
other uses, and others thought that some watersheds should be designated exclusively
for drinking water use (e.g., watershed reserves).
The Panel supports all four components of the multi-barrier approach advocated in the
Auditor General's report, the Walkerton Inquiry, and the Drinking Water Protection Plan:
• There must be management and protection of the water source through effective
controls over land uses and pollution sources to prevent contamination;
• There must be appropriate water treatment;
• There must be sound, well-maintained and safe water distribution systems, so that
water does not become contaminated in its delivery; and
• There must be effective monitoring of water quality, followed by response to adverse
results, and enforcement of standards.
The Panel believes that drinking water must be afforded the highest priority in order to
successfully protect drinking water sources from human impacts. Stronger safeguards
are required to hold resource users responsible for impacts of their activities on source
water quality. This includes a responsibility of the polluter to repair and mitigate
damage, stop the harmful activity or pay for additional water treatment costs.
Non-point sources of contaminants present a particular challenge because none of the
conventional legal tools can adequately deal with this new and emerging problem. Both
the scientific community and the regulatory agencies have been slow in recognizing the
problem of diffuse, non-point sources of pollution in watersheds or drinking water supply
areas. This is one of the most challenging problems facing drinking water protection
agencies because the contribution by individual activities is small but the cumulative
effect can be large. With increasing urbanization (stormwater, septic systems), more
intensification in agriculture (manure and nutrient management), expansion of forest
activities into marginal lands (harvesting and road construction), and long distance
atmospheric transport of pollutants, the non-point source problem is now a dominant
issue facing most water supply agencies.
Recommendation 5: Strengthen Source Protection Measures
a) Create a "Purposes" section in the Act and include as purposes:
• to protect water from source to tap,
• to protect humans against water-borne disease and long term adverse
health effects, and
• to give drinking water priority over other resource uses in critical or
high risk watersheds (see Recommendation 6 b and c).
b) Add a clear statement that in critical or high risk watersheds (see
Recommendations 6 b and c), the provisions of this Act prevail over any
other Acts, and that decision makers under certain specified Acts (e.g.,
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 14
Forest Practices Code, Range Act, Farm Practices Protection Act, Waste
Management Act ) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Act
when making authorizations or issuing approvals.
c) Add the ability to create standards that prohibit or limit specific activities
that are known to have negative affects on surface and groundwater
drinking water sources.
These standards will become useful tools in planning activities such as the
assessment response plans and Drinking Water Protection Plans.
d) Improve local government's influence and authority in relation to drinking
watersheds and groundwater supply areas.
This may include issues related to public access, recreational activities, and land
use decisions that affect water quality in source areas.
e) Give water purveyors more authority and the means to reduce risks to
water sources.
This may take the form of enforcing Drinking Water Officer Orders through
delegation of authority or deputization of purveyors. For example, if the Drinking
Water Officer issues an order prohibiting camping and recreation in a specified
source area, the purveyor could be given authority to issue tickets to those not
complying with the order.
f) Place the onus on resource users to plan and prove that their activities
have no significant impact on source water quality in critical and high risk
water supply areas.
g) Establish clear liability rules for diminishment of drinking water quality or
quantity.
The rules should follow the principle that resource users are responsible for
impacts of their activities on source water quality and quantity and that if
diminishment occurs, the resource user must repair and mitigate the damage,
stop the harmful activity and/or pay for additional water treatment costs.
h) Implement a non-point source program that focuses on source control,
reducing inputs, pollution detention, and impacts of products on the
environment (life cycle analysis). Include regulatory instruments (e.g.,
regulation of urban development, agricultural practices and septic systems
through permits, licences and prohibitions), economic instruments (e.g.,
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 15
i) subsidies, taxes and tax incentives) and information instruments (e.g.,
public awareness and training programs). Multi-stakeholder processes will
also be required to negotiate agreements between the multiple users of the
watersheds.
Assessment Process
The Act includes provisions requiring purveyors to assess existing and potential
problems and risks with the water source and treatment and distribution systems. These
assessments will give the purveyor and the users of the system a better understanding
of their level of protection and point to actions that may need to be taken to safeguard
their water supply.
The need for assessments was supported in many submissions to the Panel; however,
there was concern by some over the requirement that the purveyor complete the
assessment. The main concerns were lack of funding and capacity to conduct the
assessments (particularly small systems) but also a conflict of interest. It was suggested
that this activity could be done at the provincial or regional level to avoid duplication of
effort.
The Panel believes that assessments are a vital component of the Act and that placing
responsibility for assessments solely on the purveyor is unreasonable because they
usually lack control over land use in the watershed (this is most often controlled by the
provincial government which is responsible for Crown Land, water, lakes and streams).
Purveyors will have an important role in providing information for assessments, but the
responsibility for coordination and completion of the assessments should be a provincial
responsibility. This is similar to the approach taken by the US Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Panel also believes that critical or high-risk drinking water sources should be
identified up front through a screening process . This will identify water sources that
should be addressed on a priority basis and which may require higher levels of
protection. This is consistent with a risk management approach.
The Panel has considered opportunities to generate revenue to offset the costs of
assessments and includes these in Recommendation 23.
Recommendation 6: Provincial Responsibility for Assessments
a) Assign Drinking Water Officers responsibility for coordination, review and
approval of the assessments.
b) Require province-wide screening risk assessments to identify drinking
water supply areas that are at high risk of contamination or are already in
critical condition. Full source assessments should be conducted in these
areas on a priority basis.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 16
c) Develop criteria for screening and full assessments, with the assistance of
an expert working group, to guide assessments, define the level of risk,
and allow for evaluation. This will also include advice on the appropriate
timeframe for updating assessments, which may vary depending on the
level of risk in the area.
d) Develop a cost-sharing formula to fund assessments, that includes
participation of the Drinking Water Protection Agency, purveyors and
watershed resource users.
e) Look for opportunities to minimize duplication by conducting assessments
at local and regional scales.
f) Include provision for the DWO to initiate public involvement processes in
association with assessments.
Drinking Water Officers
The DWPA introduces a new position of the Drinking Water Officer (DWO), giving new
investigative, preventative and remedial powers in relation to drinking water. This new
position was one of the key strengths identified by many of those making submissions
to the Panel.
The Panel believes that the introduction of Drinking Water Officers is a positive step and
that these positions should be incorporated into the existing public health framework
rather than creating a new structure that could result in confusion over roles. This will
avoid duplication and confusion over roles, particularly with Medical Health Officers and
Environmental Health Officers.
A primary role of the Drinking Water Officers will be to coordinate among those who
have a role in implementing the Drinking Water Protection Act . In keeping with the
collective and multi-disciplinary approach recommended for the Board of Directors of
the Drinking Water Protection Agency, the Panel believes that Drinking Water Officers
should coordinate multi-disciplinary implementation teams at the regional level . This
approach will ensure that the necessary resources and policy direction are applied to
address drinking water issues in a timely manner.
Recommendation7: Clarify and Strengthen the Role of the Drinking Water Officer
a) Appoint the existing Senior Medical Health Officers as Drinking Water
Officers in the new Drinking Water Protection Agency, one for each of the
Health Regions (currently there are five).
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 17
The Drinking Water Officer may delegate his or her authority to others within the
region, but will remain accountable for implementation of the Drinking Water
Protection Act in the region.
b) Stipulate that Drinking Water Officers will coordinate Multi-Disciplinary
Implementation Teams in each of the regions, allowing for more than one
team per region as appropriate, to assist with drinking water matters.
The team will include environment officials including surface, groundwater, and
watershed management experts (from the Ministries of Sustainable Resource
Management and Water, Land and Air Protection); and public health officials
such as Medical Health Officers and Environmental Health Officers (from the
Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning), purveyors and other
expertise as required (e.g., forestry and agriculture) to cover the necessary
disciplines for managing drinking water from source to tap. Given the new
requirements for groundwater protection, expertise in hydrogeology - through
staff or contract - will be needed in each region.
c) Provide additional funding to the Senior Medical Health Officers and the
Multi-Disciplinary Implementation Teams so they can carry out their new
drinking water duties in a timely fashion. Sources of new funds are
discussed in Recommendation 23.
d) Enable Drinking Water Officers to establish public notification processes,
conduct public involvement processes and develop multi-stakeholder
advisory processes as required.
Small Systems
It is estimated that half a million people in British Columbia get their drinking water from
small systems; these include systems that supply a single household and small
community systems that supply two or more connections (e.g., camp grounds, reserve
lands, trailer parks, motels and resorts, small communities). Approximately 60 per cent
of small systems have surface sources and the remainder use groundwater. Some of
the problems with small systems are lack of awareness and training about proper
operation and monitoring and lack of financial resources to safeguard drinking water. In
some cases, systems are abandoned or there is no designated purveyor.
The DWPA does not apply to single-family systems but does apply to small systems
with two or more connections. The Panel heard from some single-family operators that
there is nothing in the Act to help them, particularly when their drinking water quality is
affected by surrounding land uses. The Panel also heard from some small system
operators (with two or more connections) that the Act is not feasible or affordable for
them, especially the requirements for assessment, monitoring and reporting. Some
suggested that the definition of a water supply system should be changed to include
only those with more connections (e.g., 15 or more).
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 18
The Panel recognizes that the Act will be difficult for small system operators and at the
same time wants to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place for British
Columbians, whether they are served by a large municipal system or a small
neighbourhood system.
Recommendation 8: Recognize Compliance Limitations of Small Systems
a) Retain the current definition of a water supply system (i.e., two or more
connections) in the Act.
b) Allow Drinking Water Officers to exempt small systems from certain parts
of this Act through their operating permits.
c) Enable and develop province-wide regulations outlining the process for
issuing exemptions.
d) Establish an expert working group to develop the process for issuing
exemptions (e.g., timeframe of exemptions, what sections of the Act can be
exempt and under what conditions) and define the upper limit to the size of
small systems that can apply for exemptions. This will include a
recommended approach for addressing small systems that are perpetually
non-compliant (may include requirement to amalgamate with larger
systems that are in compliance).
Recommendation 9: Provide Support to Small Systems
The Panel recommends a number of non-legislative (policy) approaches to providing
support for small systems.
a) Develop an education and training program for single-family water system
operators. Include information about how to protect the source and how to
access a Drinking Water Officer regarding source protection concerns.
b) Create and maintain a database of small systems, including unlicensed
systems. This will include the identification of the responsible purveyor.
c) Develop a program to support small systems with two or more
connections. This will include support for the administrative, financial and
operational aspects of managing water supply systems.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 19
Tap Water Standards
The DWPA, as passed in April 2001, included amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Regulation (SDWR), which are pursuant to the Health Act . The SDWR included three
schedules (A, B and C) that set the Guidelines For Canadian Drinking Water as
standards for drinking water in BC. On Sept.5, 2001, the provincial government
rescinded Schedules B and C, which contain health-related chemical standards and
additional chemical and physical standards (respectively), leaving in place Schedule A,
which contains microbiological standards (fecal coliform, E. coli, and total coliform).
The DWPA contemplates the creation of tap water standards for water supply systems
through an operating permit; it does not enable province-wide tap water standards. The
Safe Drinking Water Regulation (SDWR) already allows the Ministry of Health Services
to set site-specific standards but this power is rarely used.
Province-wide tap water standards are used in other provinces in Canada (i.e., Alberta,
Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia) and internationally (e.g., USA, UK, European Union
and the World Health Organization). In comparison to these other jurisdictions, the
standards included in Schedules A, B and C of the April 2001 version of the SDWR are
generally less stringent.
The Panel believes that a set of minimum province-wide standards is required to give
British Columbians confidence that drinking water has the same safeguards throughout
the province. The definition of potable water must also be changed to provide a clearer
objective for drinking water in the province.
Recommendation 10: Enable Tap Water Standards
a) Enable the creation of province-wide tap-water standards, including
appropriate physical, chemical and biological parameters, and require
appropriate monitoring.
b) Appoint an expert working group to consider the Canadian guidelines and
standards used in other jurisdictions, and develop an appropriate set of
science-based minimum standards for British Columbia and a schedule
outlining the appropriate frequency of monitoring.
c) Allow for a transition period for implementation of the standards to give
purveyors time to change any operations or equipment that may be needed
to meet the new standards and to secure funding for the improvements.
d) Allow for local standards to supplement or add to province-wide standards.
e) Ensure that the tap water standards are enforced.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 20
Recommendation 11: Redefine "Potable Water"
Define potable water in the Act as, "water that does not contain microorganisms
or any other substances at concentrations that present a
potential danger to human health". Standards set through regulation must
be consistent with this definition.
Water Treatment and Distribution Standards
Some of the biggest risks to safe drinking water in British Columbia come from
microbiological organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (particularly Giardia
and Cryptosporidium ). Protozoa, which pose the greatest risk to human health from
waterborne contamination in BC, are very difficult to measure or monitor in water,
making tap-water standards ineffective as a shield against these parasites.
The Provincial Health Officer (2001) concluded, "…setting and implementing treatment
standards would minimize the health risks that British Columbians face from waterborne
contaminants." Treatment standards set a minimum level of treatment by specifying
required reductions (i.e., number of logarithmic reductions) in the concentration of
pathogens found in drinking water.
The Drinking Water Protection Act provides an option for water treatment standards
through the use of terms and conditions on operating permits, but not province-wide
standards. Some submissions to the Panel stressed that source protection alone is not
enough and that more attention to treatment options and the need for minimum,
province-wide treatment standards is required in the Act.
There were also submissions stressing that the best quality treated water is still not safe
at the tap if it passes through a faulty distribution system where contamination can
occur. The multi-barrier approach to drinking water management recognizes all three
stages of drinking water: the source, treatment and distribution. So far, distribution is not
adequately safeguarded in the legislation.
The Panel believes that province-wide treatment and distribution standards are a vital
component of the multi-barrier approach to safeguarding drinking water. Treatment
standards are particularly essential given the risk of illness due to the presence of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium in some BC drinking water sources.
Recommendation 12: Enable Water Treatment and Distribution Standards
a) Enable the creation of drinking water treatment standards and water
distribution standards to protect the public from health hazards associated
with drinking water.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 21
b) Appoint an expert working group to develop appropriate treatment standards for
microbiological, chemical and physical characteristics and a schedule
outlining the appropriate frequency of monitoring.
c) Appoint an expert working group to develop appropriate water distribution
standards, addressing issues such as cross-connection controls, and a
schedule outlining the appropriate frequency of monitoring.
d) Ensure that the treatment and distribution standards are enforced.
Drinking Water Protection Plans
Part 5 of the Act allows for development of Drinking Water Protection Plans and the
ability to restrict land uses that may compromise water quality. While the ability to create
a Plan was generally supported in submissions to the Panel, there was much confusion
and also concerns regarding the circumstances under which a Plan would be
developed, and why the Minister and Cabinet must be involved. Some assumed that
this provision would be used rarely and under specific conditions and others were
concerned that the number of requests to develop plans would be overwhelming.
The Panel believes that the link between Drinking Water Protection Plans and the
assessment process and the assessment response plans is not clear in the Act, nor is
the relationship to other ongoing planning processes.
Recommendation 13: Clarify When a Drinking Water Protection Plan is Required
a) Demonstrate in the Act, the relationship between the assessment process,
the assessment response plans and the Drinking Water Protection Plans.
b) Allow for a phased approach that begins with an assessment (or an
equivalent understanding of the threats to drinking water) and an
assessment response plan. Then, only if there are outstanding threats to
drinking water and specific criteria are met, should a Drinking Water
Protection Plan process be carried out.
c) Develop a clear set of triggers or criteria to clarify the conditions under
which a Drinking Water Protection Plan is to be considered.
Recommendation 14: Change the Authority to Develop a Drinking Water
Protection Plan
a) Give the Drinking Water Officer the authority to coordinate and develop the
plan and then report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Drinking Water
Protection Agency.
Drinking Water Review Panel • Final Report
Page 22
b) Refer issues related to province-wide policy to Cabinet or a Provincial
Advisory Committee, not matters related to the management of individual
systems.
Recommendation 15: Clarify Relationship to Other Planning Processes
Clarify in the Act that other planning processes (e.g., Land and Resource
Management Plans, Water Use Plans, Five-Year Forest Plans, Official
Community Plans) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Plans.
Water Use Conservation and Efficiency
The protection of drinking water quality is closely tied to the issue of water use, or water
quantity. Per cap