Water Resources Planning in the Fraser River Basin: an Assessment of the Principles in Practice 1948-1989
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE 1948-1989
by
JEFFREY B. BARRONS
B.Sc, Science Education, Oregon State University
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 1989
(c) Jeffrey B. Barrens, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department
The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada
Date IS CrJpW \°£A
DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT
The purpose of this thesis was to assess the evolution of water resources planning in the Fraser
River basin. This assessment was done by first, identifying the principles of water resources management and detailing their history of acceptance in the water management literature. The history of water resources planning in the Fraser River basin, more specifically the history of area planning in the basin, is then examined. The plans were then assessed using the principles of water resources planning as the criteria. The primary conclusion drawn from the assessment is that the evolution of water resources planning in the Fraser River basin has paralleled that of water resources planning in the literature as it pertains to the acceptance of the principles of water resources planning. The thesis concludes by offering insights into what seemed to work and what did not work in incorporating the principles into water resources planning and management in the
Fraser River basin. Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT*' ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 THE NATURE OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 3 1.3 METHODOLOGY 4 1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 4 1.5 ORGANIZATION 6
CHAPTER 2 THE' PRINCIPLES OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN HISTORY 8 2.1 THE STRATEGIES OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 8 2.1.1 Single Purpose Construction 11 2.1.1.1 Public Construction 11 2.1.1.2 Private Construction 11 2.1.2 Single Means Multiple Purpose Construction 12 2.1.3 Single Purpose Projects using Multiple Means 12 2.1.4 Single Purpose Projects using Multiple Means including Research 13 2.1.5 Multiple Purpose Projects using Multiple Means 13 2.2 THE EVOLUTION OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN NORTH AMERICA 14 2.2.1 Pre-I900s 14 . 2.2.2 1900-1930 16 2.2.3 1930-1945 18 2.2.4 1945-1960 22 2.2.5 1960-1970 23 2.2.6 1970-Present 25 2.3 SUMMARY 30
CHAPTER 3 THE PRINCIPLES OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 32 3.1 DEFINING THE PRINCIPLES 32 3.1.1 Basin-Wide Planning 34 3.1.2 Multiple purpose planning 34 3.1.3 Local Institutions 35 3.1.4 Integration 36 3.1.5 Multiple means planning 37 3.1.6 Multiple Objective Planning 38 3.1.7 Multiple Objective Evaluation 40 3.1.8 Public Participation 40 3.1.9 Implementation Strategy 42 3.1.10 Review Process 43 3.1.11 Water as an Economic Good 44 3.2 SUMMARY 45
CHAPTER 4 THE FRASER RIVER BASIN CASE STUDY 47 4.1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE FRASER RIVER BASIN 47 4.2 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 49 4.2.1 The Constitutional Foundation 50 4.2.2 Federal Legislation and Institutions 50 4.2.3 Provincial Legislation and Institutions 54 4.2.4 The Provincial Hierarchy of Water Resources Planning 59 4.3 PLANNING STRATEGIES USED IN THE FRASER BASIN 62 4.3.1 Strategic Planning 62 4.3.2 Preplanning Studies 64 4.3.3 Environmental Assessment and Review Process 64 4.3.4 Integrated Watershed Management Plans 65 4.4 SUMMARY 66
CHAPTER 5 HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN 67 5.1 WATER RESOURCE ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO 1948 67 5.1.1 Dyking and Drainage 67 5.1.2 Channel Improvements 70 5.1.3 Power Development 71 5.2 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 19 48-PRESENT , 72 5.2.1 Flood Management 72 5.2.2 Power Development and Diversions 82 5.2.3 Water Resources Planning and Management in the Lower Fraser Valley 84 5.2.4 Water Resources Planning and Management in the Interior 88 5.3 SUMMARY 91
CHAPTER 6 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANS 93 6.1 DOMINION-PROVINCIAL BOARD, FRASER RIVER BASIN 95 6.3 FLOOD CONTROL AGREEMENTS 99 6.4 COQUITLAM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY 102 6.5 FRASER RIVER ESTUARY STUDY 105 6.6 THOMPSON RIVER PREPLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT 109 6.7 NICOLA BASIN STRATEGIC PLAN 111 6.8 FRASER DELTA STRATEGIC PLAN 114 6.9 THOMPSON-BONAPARTE STRATEGIC PLAN 116 6.10 LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN 118 6.11 SHUSWAP LAKE STRATEGIC PLAN 120 6.12 NORRISH GREEK INTEGRATED WATERSHED PLAN 1 22 6.13 NECHAKO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN 124
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT 127 7.1 BASIN-WIDE PLANNING 127 7.2 MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING 132 7.3 REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS 133 7.4 INTEGRATION 138 7.5 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING 141 7.6 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING 142 7.7 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION 143 7.8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 145 7.9 IMPLEMENTATION 148 7.10 REVIEW STRATEGY 149 7.11 ECONOMIC GOOD 150
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS 152 8.1 THE USE OF THE PRINCIPLES 152 8.1.1 Basin-wide Planning 152 8.1.2 Multiple Purpose Planning 153 8.1.3 Integration 154 8.1.4 Local Institutions 154 8.1.5 Multiple Means Planning 155 8.1.6 Multiple Objective Planning 155 8.1.7 Multiple Objective Evaluation 156 8.1.8 Public Participation 156 8.1.9 Implementation Strategy 157 8.1.10 Review Process 158 8.1.11 Treating Water as an Economic Good 158 8.1.12 Summary 159 8.2 THE PLANS 159 8.2.1 The Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin 159 8.2.2 The Fraser River Board 160 8.2.3 Flood Control Agreements 160 8.2.4 The Coquitlam River Water Management Plan 161 8.2.5 The Fraser River Estuary Study 161 8.2.6 The Thompson River Basin Preplan , 162 8.2.7 The Nicola Basin Strategic Plan 162 8.2.8 The Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan, The Shuswap Lake Environmental Management Plan, and The Fraser Delta Environmental Management Plan 163 8.2.9 The Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lake Management Plan 164 8.2.10 Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan 164 8.2.11 The Nechako River Management Plan 165 8.2.12 Summary 165 VI
BIBLIOGRAPHY 167 CITED REFERENCES 167 STATUTES 176 Canadian and British Columbian Statutes 176 United States Statutes 176 PERSONS CONTACTED 177 VII
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-EXAMPLES OF CANADIAN USES OF THE STRATEGIES OF WATER MANAGEMENT V - 10 TABLE 2-SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES' ROLES IN WATER MANAGEMENT 53 TABLE 3-THE HIERARCHY OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 61
TABLE 4-THE FRASER RIVER'S GREATEST FRESHETS AT MISSION 69
TABLE 5-AN ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN 94 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-THE EVOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIES OF WATER MANAGEMENT
FIGURE 2-A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRINCIPLES' EVOLUTION
FIGURE 3-ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL STRATEGIES
FIGURE 4-A LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
FIGURE 5-THE FRASER BASIN
FIGURE 6-THE FRASER BASIN IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
FIGURE 7-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGIONS
FIGURE 8-REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES
FIGURE 9-STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING UNITS
FIGURE 10-A CHRONOLOGY OF WATER RESOURCES AREA PLANNING IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 11-LOCATION OF PLANS ASSESSED
FIGURE 12-SYSTEM A
FIGURE 13-SYSTEM E
FIGURE 14-THE FREMP MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis is the result of a great deal of dedication on the part of my wife, Kelly, and on the part of Tony Dorcey who provided insights, patience and a great deal of time towards its completion. 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE NATURE OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Water resources management involves controlling. water as it passes through its natural cycle, with balanced consideration being given to its economic, social and environmental benefits (Grigg 1985). This management is a critically important human activity because, among many other important functions, the quality and quantity of water determines levels of public health, food production, productivity of industry, and energy production. Traditionally water management has dealt with small, localized issues (Sewell
1977), most often concerning supply allocation. Over time however, the matters confronting water resource management have become more complex and geographically diffuse, and management of the water resource has become more complicated. To cope with this expansion in management activity there has been a move to broaden its focus
(Dorcey 1987a).
Today, water resources management is comprised of a number of tasks, including planning, which are required to achieve societal goals (OECD 1980). In addition to planning, water resources management may include such activities as data collection, research, analysis, impact assessment, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities, monitoring, and enforcement. However, water resources planning is one of the
most important and basic management activities (Grigg 1985). A United Nations planning
team (1972) gave this definition of water resources planning:
"Water resources development planning involves examination of short-term and long-term needs and ways to meet those needs. It involves the comparative evaluation of alternative solutions with respect to their technical, economic, social and environmental merits. Planning means looking into the future from a broad spectrum of disciplines."
Water resources planning is an important process because it allows society to
capitalize on opportunities and reduce development costs (United States 1972a). In the 2 past society has found itself faced with serious water related problems, such as pollution or regional supply shortages, with which it has had to deal. These problems might have been foreseen and met before becoming serious if a planning process had been in place.
Effective planning will also act to coordinate all the management processes (Grigg 1985), and will provide a systematic framework within which problems and opportunities can be defined, their interrelationships established, and future problems anticipated (Washington
1970).
Effective water resources planning is governed by a set of themes which form a framework within which planning takes place (Grigg 1985). These themes include:
a) the water resources planner must have an appreciation for the politics involved
in water resources management, or the plans which are developed will be left on
the shelf;
b) there must be some understanding of the bureaucratic processes, as well as an
understanding of how to best use the resources available for planning;
c) the planners must have a respect for the technical aspects of planning, such as
data collection;
d) the planners must have an understanding of society's values and how they may
change;
e) there must be an understanding that water resources management is science
based, and therefore it requires an understanding of mathematics and science as
they pretain to water resources planning and management.
In addition, water resources planning and management is governed by a set of
continually evolving principles. The use of these principles improves planning and
management's ability to achieve the desired response or outcome, i.e. improving its
effectiveness, and to achieve this outcome with a minimum of effort and waste, i.e.
improving planning and management's efficiency. 3
The development and acceptance of these principles has been stimulated by two factors: population growth, which has led to demands for water outstripping supplies, and the increasing affluence of society, which has led to conflicts over use of the water resource
(Foster and Sewell 1981). In nations such as the United States and those of western
Europe which have relatively small per capita supplies of water and large demands on the resource these factors have led to the adoption of new principles and strategies for the planning and management of their water supplies.
The adoption of similar principles and strategies has been slower in Canada, hampered by the perception that there is an unlimited supply of clean water (Pearse et al. 1985). It
has become evident however, that while Canada as a whole has a large supply of water,
there are regions within Canada that are facing water-oriented crises. These crises may
arise from water shortages, or because of the contamination of local supplies. Whatever
the cause, these issues have slowly led to the incorporation of the principles and strategies
of water resources planning and management into water resources planning and
management in Canada.
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this thesis is to assess the evolution of water resource planning in the
Fraser River Basin during the period 1948-1989. The assessment was completed by
comparing the evolution of what are commonly accepted today as the principles of water
resources planning and management with the evolution of water resources planning in the
Fraser basin. Each plan was assessed for its use of the principles which were accepted at
the time the planning was undertaken. The thesis' specific objectives are to:
a) review the evolution of concepts or strategies within the water management
literature and to synthesize a set of guiding principles for contemporary water
resource planning and management,
b) detail water resource planning done within the Fraser River Basin, 4
c) evaluate water resource planning in the Fraser River Basin with regard to the
guiding principles of water resource planning found in the literature, and
d) make recommendations on how water resource planning in the Fraser basin can
make better use of the principles of water resource planning based on conclusions
drawn from the assessment.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The thesis research employed a case study approach in which water resource plans developed in the Fraser River basin since 1948 were reviewed, and then evaluated against eleven criteria synthesized from the literature. The Fraser basin was chosen as the case study for several reasons including: its rich planning history, the diversity of issues found within the large basin, and because of its importance to the Province of British Columbia.
Several sources of information were used in the thesis research including: the water management literature, Fraser basin water resource plans, and interviews with a wide variety of people in government. The literature review provided the background from which the principles of water resource planning and management were synthesized.
Interviews were used to clarify and expand the information found in the planning documents.
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The phrase water resources planning and management, as employed in this thesis, includes those uses of the water resource that once fell outside the realm of what was i considered conventional water planning. The phrase water planning and management is often associated strictly with supply allocation for domestic, agricultural or industrial purposes. However, water can be put to many other important uses, such as recreation, maintenance of the fishery, power generation, and navigation, activities which all need to be taken into account in the planning process. 5
The year 1948 represents a watershed in water resource planning in the Fraser River basin. Prior to that year's flood, water resource management was primarily concerned with dredging, bank protection, dyking, and snag removal, activities for which there was not much long-term planning. However, since the flood of 1948 there has been a great deal of water resources planning done within the basin, and for this reason 1948 was chosen as the point to begin the assessment.
There are many different types of plans developed in the Fraser River basin, by many different agencies, both private and public. These plans include federal and provincial policy plans, sectoral plans, project plans, and area plans. The importance of each plan is acknowledged; however, because of a lack of firsthand information and a desire to base the assessment primarily on the written documents the assessment was limited to area plans.
In this case, area plans include regional plans and watershed-oriented operational water management plans and studies done by the Provincial and Federal Governments. It is felt that these plans offer a sufficient diversity to accurately assess the evolution of water resource planning in the Fraser basin. In order to present a more comprehensive overview of water resources planning history in the Fraser a number of project plans are included in the description of the history of water resources planning in the Fraser basin.
While the principles of water resources planning and management have been incorporated into water resources planning and management in Canada, for the most part the principles evolved first in the United States. Because of this, the section detailing the evolution of the principles is based primarily on the United States water management literature. Similarly, the majority of the dates used in the assessment as denoting the period when the principles were accepted are based on the U.S. literature; the exceptions to this are the dates used for the use of implementation and review strategies, and treating water as an economic good, which seem to have evolved simultaneously in Canada and the
United States. In these cases, examples from the Canadian water management literature are cited. 6
The actual assessment of the plans was limited to the documentation on each plan available to the author. In most cases, this documentation was the plan itself, as in the case of the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan. In other cases, the assessment was based on the report of various boards, such as the Fraser River Board or the Dominion-Provincial
Board, Fraser River Basin. A set of limited interviews was conducted with people involved in planning and management in the Fraser River basin. The material gained from these interviews was primarily used to clarify points or comment on trends recognized during the course of completion of the assessment. The interviews were cited when the material was background information into the history of planning in the Fraser basin. However, interviews that were used in the analysis were not cited other than indicating that the material did come from an interview. This was done out of respect for the sources' confidentiality
The quality and quantity of information varied from plan to plan and report to report; thus the amount of information found in the assessment varies from plan to plan.
However, each plan was assessed as thoroughly as possible and credit for using a principle was given if there was any suggestion that it was used. The assessment does not attempt to assess either the quality or quantity of principle use.
1.5 ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 serves several functions. Primarily it discusses the evolution of what are today's principles of water resources planning and management. However, preceding this there is a discussion of what are commonly accepted as the strategies of water resources planning and management.
Chapter 3 details the principles of water resources planning and why they are important. It also includes a notation of the approximate date of each principles' acceptance in the literature as a principle and in Canadian policy. 7
In Chapter 4 the background for the case study is laid out. This includes a brief physical description of the Fraser River basin, an examination of the Federal and
Provincial institutional arrangements for water resources planning and management, and finally an overview of the current hierarchy of planning in British Columbia and what methods of planning have taken place in the basin.
Chapter 5 deals specifically with the history of water resources planning and management in the Fraser River basin. There is a summary of planning and management activities carried out prior to 1948, followed by an in-depth description of the plans used in the assessment. The historical description is broadened to include some of the project plans and studies undertaken since 1948, and the environmental assessments carried out under the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP).
In Chapter 6 is found the assessment of the plans detailed in Chapter 4. The informati
is presented in this chapter plan by plan under which each principle is discussed.
In Chapter 7 the results of the assessment are analyzed according to each principle.
Chapter 8 is primarily a reflection on how well the plans incorporated the principles,
how the principles were incorporated or not incorporated and a discussion of what seemed
to work the best in incorporating each principle. CHAPTER 2
THE PRINCIPLES OF WATER RESOURCES
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN HISTORY
This chapter discusses the evolution of the principles of water resources planning and management. First, as background to that discussion there is an introduction to the different planning and management strategies that have evolved to manage water resources. In both sections the primary source of information is the water management literature based on management experiences in the United States. The strategies and principles are as applicable in Canada as in the United States however, and have been accepted here, although with some delay. Each planning and management strategy is illustrated with a Canadian example, and the historical description cites events that signal
Canadian acceptance and use of the principles when documented. Greater attention is given to Canada and British Columbia in Chapter 3 where the evolution of the federal and provincial roles in water management from 1948 to the present are discussed. This discussion serves as an introduction to detailing the history of planning and management in the Fraser Basin found in Chapter 4.
2.1 THE STRATEGIES OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Various strategies of water management have been used in recent history (Figure 1).
These strategies have been detailed for the United States by Gilbert White (1969) in his book "American Strategies of Water Management". The framework has broad applicability because of the dominance of ideas generated in the United States in the development of the principles for water resources planning and management. This section provides a basic understanding of each strategy as an introduction to the following section.
Tate (1981) gives examples of how the strategies have been used in Canada (Table 1). Single-Purpose Multiple-Means Mixed e.g. Flood loss reduction'
Single-Purpose Single-Purpose Construction Construction Public Multiple-Purpose Private e.g. Navigation Multiple-Means Rural water supply Including Research Mixed Metropolitan planning
Multiple-Purpose Construction Public e.g. Basin schemes
Multiple-Purpose Research Public e.g. Weather modification research
FIGURE 1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIES OF WATER MANAGEMENT (From Gilbert White's Strategies of American Water Management 1969) 10
TABLE 1 CANADIAN EXAMPLES OF THE STRATEGIES OF NATES MANAGEMENT Strategy Case Purpose(s) Objective(s) Techniques Range of Example employed Alternatives considered
Single Purpose Alcan Power" Economic Engineering Narrow- Private Development Production efficiency and structural Construction of Saguenay construction only plus Basin plus modelling flow management
Single Purpose Winnipeg Flood Economic Engineering Construction Public Ploodway control efficiency and and physical Construction construction alternatives plus CBA
Multiple South Irrigation, Regional Engineering Narrow- Purpose Saskatchewan power, development and slight Construction River Project water supply, construction variations recreation, plus CBA. in project flow design augmentation
Single Purpose Federal- Mitigation of Lower the Nonstruct. Wide range Multiple provincial flood damage cost of plus of alternatives Means flood damage disaster .structural evaluated reduction assisstance program
Single Purpose Water Demand Greater Variety of Wide range, Multiple Means conservation management efficiency in nonstruct. economic,' and Research project, as sub. for water supply measures for public info., Waterloo supply demand in-house expansion reduction water saving methods
Multiple Purpose Canada-BC Water supply, Economic Three Multiple Means Okanagan . quality efficiency, A very development River Basin deterioration, environmental diverse range scenarios- study flood control, protection of physical status quo, recreation and social max. growth, science env. protection tech. and (Tate 1981) evaluation nutt-hoda
Tate, D. (1981). "River Basin Development in Canada". In Mitchell, B. and Sewell, W.R.D.. Canadian Resource Policies; Problems and Prospects. Toronto:Methuen. 11
2.1.1 Single Purpose Construction
Single purpose construction, for hydroelectric power generation or the provision of water supplies, is the oldest and most widespread form of modern water management.
Single purpose construction has taken two forms: private and public construction.
2.1.1.1 Public Construction
Single purpose public construction has been associated with single aims and management strategies. It is generally biased towards traditional engineering solutions - free from experimentation with alternative means, and often impervious to doubts as to its economic justification.
An example of single purpose public construction in Canada is the Winnipeg Floodway which was built between 1962 and 1968 to control flooding in the Winnipeg Metro area.
The project used only engineering and construction techniques and some Cost-Benefit
Analysis, and only alternatives involving construction were considered.
2.1.1.2 Private Construction
Single purpose private construction was the first water management strategy to be used. Water resources were seen to be limitless, and little thought was given to the effects of private action on others. In contrast to single purpose public construction, single purpose private construction gives more thought to the alternative water management strategies available, and generally makes more use of innovative technology. There is also
a limited application of economic criteria in the evaluation of projects, but little thought is
given to environmental or social impacts.
The example of single purpose private construction cited by Tate (1981) is the
development of the Suguenay Basin by Alcan for power production. The alternatives
considered were limited to those involving construction. 12
2.1.2 Single Means Multiple Purpose Construction
The concept of multiple purpose construction has its roots in the technological revolution of the early twentieth century. This new technology allowed the inexpensive construction of large dams, generation of hydroelectric power, and the transmission of electricity over long distances. The Hoover dam, which stores irrigation water, controls flood waters, augments water supply in the Southern California area, and enhances navigation on the Colorado river, is the example of multiple purpose construction most often cited. Multiple purpose construction "substituted one structure for a number of structures and in doing so often gained economies of scale and combination which otherwise would have been lost". The switch from single to multiple purpose construction increased the total number of uses perceived in public water planning by adding new purposes and provoking thought into further uses of the water resource.
A Canadian example of multiple purpose construction is the South Saskatchewan River
Project, which was authorized in 1958. The project was built to supply water for irrigation, power generation, recreation, and flow augmentation. While the project did consider the many uses of the water resource it still relied on a narrow range of alternative methods of management centered around construction.
2.1.3 Single Purpose Projects using Multiple Means
Through experience it has been recognized that there are many valuable perspectives on the means when considering single purpose problems. This experience has shown that structural methods can be successfully augmented by non-structural solutions. No longer is the engineer's structural bias allowed to dominate alternative solutions because these alternatives may improve effectiveness and reduce overall costs. Multiple means planning can maintain flexibility for the future, and not compromise alternative choices. It also forces managers to identify all possible alternatives and to recognize more clearly the consequences of water management. 13
The classic case of a multiple means approach to water management is the flood control use of mapping, warnings, and zoning in combination with structural solutions, such as dyking and upstream storage reservoirs.
The federal-provincial Flood Damage Reduction Program, initiated in 1975, is a
Canadian example of single purpose projects using multiple means. The purpose of the program is to mitigate flood damage in Canada, but instead of relying solely on structural solutions the program uses a wide range of alternatives, including floodplain mapping and zoning, flood warnings and flood proofing.
2.1.4 Single Purpose Projects using Multiple Means including Research
This approach uses research to define and develop options for water management.
The research should cut across the disciplinary lines of engineering, physical, social and biological sciences to find solutions to management issues.
Tate (1981) cites the water conservation project, undertaken in the mid-1970s, in
Waterloo, Ontario as a single purpose project using multiple means and research. In order to reduce the costs of supplying water the municipality and the University of Waterloo jointly initiated a research project aimed at developing an effective water conservation program (Robinson 1979). The conservation program was meant to overcome supply problems through the use of demand management rather than expanding the supply. The plan would use a wide variety of alternatives, including in-house water saving measures, public information, and economic pressures. In 1981 the plan was still in the research
phase, but the attention it was attracting seemed to indicate a potential for success.
2.1.5 Multiple Purpose Projects using Multiple Means
Multiple purpose water management using multiple means is the most complex form
of water management. Multiple purpose multiple means planning recognizes the various 14 uses of the water resource, and that a number of alternatives exist as possible solutions to water management issues.
A Canadian example of a multiple purpose project using multiple means is the Canada-
British Columbia Okanagan River Basin study carried out under the Canada Water Act in the early 1970s. The purpose of the study was to enhance water supply, halt quality deterioration, control floods, and enhance recreational opportunities. The study considered a wide range of physical and social science alternatives and evaluative methods. In addition, it developed three development scenarios based on: maintaining the status quo, maximum development, and protecting the environment.
2.2 THE EVOLUTION OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES IN
NORTH AMERICA
Water resources planning and management started out as a process focused on single purpose private efforts, with little attention being paid to the effects on other resource users. Today it is a complex procedure which involves the public, considers the many uses of the water resource, assesses the impacts on society and the environment, and makes use of alternative management options (Figure 2). The purpose of this section is to detail that evolution so that the approximate date each principle was generally and broadly accepted can be identified for use in the assessment.
2.2.1 Pre-1900s
Prior to 1900 water resources planning was essentially a single purpose, private effort
(United States 1972b). Planning was focused primarily on two objectives: the development of local water supplies, and the improvement of waterways for navigation. During this period the basis for most decisions was the desire for a growing, expanding economy (Fox
1962). The emphasis on the development of the waterways was seen as fulfilling this
desire by unifying nations, both economically and politically. FIGURE 2 A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRINCIPLES' EVOLUTION
1900 Multiple purpose planning first proposed
River basin planning advocated
1925 Multiple purpose planning accepted in "308 reports" Tennessee Valley Administration established, river basin planning becomes operational and regional resource management is accepted Integration among water resource planning agencies becomes a priority
_ 1950 Cost-Benefit Analysis is standardized Multiple means planning is first accepted in flood control
1970 '— Environmental and Social Impact Assessment are accepted Public participation is incorporated into decision making Principles and Standards of water resources planning accepted
1980: The importance of an implementation strategy and plan review is accepted Treating water as a marketable good is accepted 16
2.2.2 1900-1930
At the opening of the twentieth century the most common water resources management strategy remained unchanged (Sewell 1985). Water management was still primarily concerned with local, single purpose construction projects, largely in the form of navigation projects, hydroelectric power supply, and water supply for domestic or agricultural purposes. Development of the water resource was frequently done in isolation from other resources, and little attention was paid to the environmental, social, or economic impacts of development.
Innovation in water resources planning and management was initiated early in the century however, under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt (Schad 1979). With
Roosevelt's encouragement and support, the natural resource conservation movement blossomed, and comprehensive planning for the multiple purpose use of the water resource was actively promoted.
This early twentieth century environmental movement was divided into two factions: the conservationist movement, which expounded the benefits of the "wise use" of the nation's resources, and the preservationist movement, which wanted to protect a portion of the nation's resources for future generations. The most influential conflict between these two factions, and one which would affect resource management for fifty years, was the battle over California's Hetch-Hetchy Valley (Black 1987). At the beginning of the century the city of San Francisco proposed to build a storage reservoir in Hetch-Hetchy
Valley to increase its water supply. The preservationists, led by John Muir, fought to stop the development of the dam while the conservationists, led by Gifford Pinchot, advocated the dam's construction. In the meantime the 1906 earthquake and subsequent fires served to further emphasize the city's need for more water. The conflict over whether to develop the valley extended over most of a decade, and was resolved in 1913 with the decision to build the dam. 17
Initial multi-purpose projects were small, such as the Roosevelt dam built in Arizona on the Salt river in 1905, and were used to supply irrigation water and to generate power
(Petersen 1984). The use of such multiple purpose projects was advocated by various commissions, such as the 1908 Inland Waterways Commission, the 1909 National
Conservation Commission, and the 1912 National Waterways Commission (Weber 1979).
These bodies envisioned broad planning, which would encompass all the uses of the water resource. All hopes for comprehensive planning were preempted however, by the 1920
Federal Water Power Act, which, while seemingly in agreement with the principle of multiple purpose planning, failed to allocate any funding for its undertaking.
In 1925 the Rivers and Harbors Act was passed, it called for the "formulation of general plans" for the multiple use of streams and rivers. In 1929 these surveys were authorized, and the subsequent "308 reports", which were the first comprehensive plans for most of the river basins in the U.S., brought recognition to the principle of multiple use
(Schad 1979; Weber 1979). Multiple purpose projects were promoted for several reasons: the demise of the single purpose waterway, the increasing demand for electricity, disastrous floods in the Mississippi Valley, and the increasing importance of irrigation to western agriculture (Fox 1962). In addition, the benefits of water development, which reduces costs by simultaneously serving several purposes, were accepted by the mainstream.
Even as the concept of multiple purpose planning was being advanced at the beginning of the twentieth century, the merits of river basin planning were being advocated. The concept of integrating land and water resources in major river basins can be traced back for thousands of years to early Sumerian, Egyptian, and Hindu-Indian civilizations (Saha and Barrow 1981), and in the United States it had been proposed as early as 1804. It was 1910 however, before single purpose projects, such as flood control structures on the
Miami river, were being managed for the entire river basin (White 1977). The debate over the effectiveness and possible applications of basin-wide planning continued for the next 18
thirty years. It was only with the advent of the Great Depression, and the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, that basin-wide planning became commonly accepted.
2.2.3 1930-1945
Since colonial times, the development of water resources had been considered key in national and regional economic development, and water resource development was promoted as a method of transferring wealth from group to group or region to region (Fox and Craine 1961). During the Great Depression of the 1930's, Franklin Roosevelt incorporated this idea of transferring wealth through water development with his conviction that the conservation of natural resources, especially soil and water, would result in long-term economic security (Riesch 1968). Roosevelt's conviction manifested itself in two ways: first, as single purpose projects were replaced by multiple purpose developments, and second, as river basin planning was implemented (Holmes 1972). The first large multiple purpose development was the Hoover Dam, built in the early 1930s.
The Hoover Dam served to store irrigation water, control floods on the Colorado River, enhance navigation, and store water for Southern California (White 1969). The recognition of the multiplicity of uses of the water resource however, failed to bring about
a corresponding change in the approaches taken to water management, which remained structurally oriented for the next thirty years (White 1969).
The implementation of river basin planning took the synthesis of three separate
concepts: the acceptance of multiple purpose projects, recognition of the unity of drainage basins, and acceptance of state intervention in the promotion of social welfare (Saha and
Barrow 1981). To achieve this final condition it took the collapse of the stock market, and
the subsequent Great Depression. Water resource planning was then pushed beyond the
site specific project, to planning on a basin-wide scale (Sewell 1983; White 1977), as
witnessed in 1933 by the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by Franklin
Roosevelt (Petersen 1984). The TVA was an innovative step in water resources planning 19 as it attempted to achieve both economic development and social betterment in an economically depressed region. To this end the TVA was charged with "the broadest duty of planning for the proper use, conservation and development of the natural resources of the Tennessee River basin and adjoining lands". The basis of the TVA was the use and management of a number of multiple purpose structures throughout the river basin, and the concept of multiple purpose river basin development was soon accepted (Fox 1962).
The TVA was also one of the first examples of an attempt to integrate and correlate on a regional basis under a single unified management institution all water resource planning and management activities, whether they be federal, state or local (Lilienthal 1940).
The Tennessee Valley Authority was not the first water resource development to contain some manner of social content (Willeke 1979). Early canal, irrigation, soil conservation, and flood control measures all had social betterment as one of their goals.
These goals included: territorial expansion, improvement of the family farm, and improvement in the quality of life. However, the extreme events of the 1930s, such as drought, widespread flooding, and economic depression focused society's compassion on the victims, and probably revealed some of the guilt felt for allowing the land base to deteriorate to such a poor state. As a result, institutions with broad social goals, such as the TVA and the Soil Conservation Service, were formed. This concern was overshadowed in the late 1930s however, by the trend to quantify planning through the inclusion of more mathematical and laboratory analysis. Any qualitative analysis present in the water planning process prior to this was discarded. Planning was limited to well defined problems, and dominated by "elitist" professions, and there was little regard for public involvement in the planning process. It was not long before quality of life was equated solely with per capita income.
The planning and management of water resources was influenced heavily by the Flood
Control Act of 1936, the first major piece of legislation to recognize the need for flood control on a watershed basis. This Act gave downstream control to the Corps of 20
Engineers and upstream control to the Soil Conservation Service; a dual approach, which was the first attempt at an integrated, multiple means approach to the management of the water resource (Leopold and Maddock 1954).
The participation of the Corps of Engineers in flood control was contingent on whether
"....the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise adversely affected" (Willeke 1979).
The evaluation of these costs and benefits was mandated in the Flood Control Act; this form of evaluation has come to be known as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) (United States
1972b). Serious application of economic analysis had not been possible earlier in the century because a series of conceptual and technical problems had yet to be resolved, primarily the development of a set of quantitative tools (James and Rogers 1979). Rather, water resource developments were approved after a congressional representative or senator argued each project's merits before Congress. As programs grew, Congress found it increasingly difficult to allocate funds without some sort of quantitative comparison.
The statutory directive directing that a project's costs and benefits be determined
applied specifically to flood control measures taken by the Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Agriculture (Holmes 1972). It was soon adopted by all water planning
agencies and by the Water Resources Commission (WRC). The WRC however, soon became concerned over how well planning agencies paid attention to "social benefits" as
well as economic benefits. A 1941 report of the National Resources Planning Board
recognized the existence of tangible and intangible benefits and the existence of direct and
indirect benefits (United States 1941). The report also recognized the inconsistencies in
how Cost-Benefit Analyses were being done and recommended that a standard method be
developed. Despite these early concerns early Cost-Benefit Analysis was primarily
considered more as a way of economically justifying a water development than as a
manner of evaluating alternatives (Linsley 1979). 21
The need for coordination among water planning agencies had first been espoused as early as 1908 by the Inland Waterways Commission (Morrell 1956). By 1940 however, little progress had been made in integrating water management, and it was soon evident that some sort of institutional mechanism was needed to coordinate federal resource management agencies. This integration was needed because the federal government found that it had several major resource agencies, each with its own specific purpose and objectives, which often conflicted with one another. Inter-agency problems were also compounded by the shift to multiple purpose development, which resulted in these agencies having, in many cases, comparable purposes. Soon similar aspirations and efforts resulted in management conflicts between agencies responsible for water resource planning and management (United States 1950).
In the 1930s there was a succession of resource boards and commissions created in an
attempt to integrate decision making. One of the initial boards was the National
Resources Board, soon reconstituted into the National Resources Committee, which was
then reorganized in 1939 to form the National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) (Schad
1979). The NRPB advocated the integration of various levels of government through river
basin committees, and was responsible for bringing together the many federal agencies,
not only to work with each other, but also with state and local governments (United States
1972b). The NRPB was abolished in 1943 when Congress refused to allocate funds for its
continuance (Schad 1979). Congress even refused to allow the board's planning function to
be transferred to other agencies and thus effectively killed the first attempt at national
water planning. The NRPB was replaced on a more informal level by a pre-existing
committee, the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee (FIREBRICK) (Holmes
1972). FIREBRICK, composed of the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Army and
the Federal Power Commission, was designed to resolve disputes among agencies involved
in water resources planning. In truth it had little power, and was soon replaced by the 22
Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources (ICWR), though a change in power failed to accompany the change in name (United States 1972b).
2.2.4 1945-1960
Following World War Two, water was still perceived to a large extent as a resource without social cost to be manipulated to man's advantage (Tate 1981), and water resource management was primarily concerned with recording stream flows and devising strategies to put the water resources to greater economic use (Dorcey 1987a).
In 1946 the Province of Ontario began to organize Conservation Authorities around watershed boundaries (Powell 1983). The authorities were unique in that they involved local government in the planning and management of a region's natural resources. They recognized that flood control was more than just a structural solution and that there was a need for new institutional arrangements (Gossage 1985). The objectives of the authorities were to "establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal, and minerals" (Powell 1983).
Multiple purpose planning was the focus of the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser
River Basin, which was organized following the devastating floods of 1948 (Canada-British
Columbia 1976). This effort was one of the first attempts at multiple purpose planning in
Canada (Sewell 1977). The Board was set up to examine the water resources found in the
Fraser River basin and report on the amount and requirements of the basin, focusing especially on power, fisheries, floods, water supply, and recreation (Canada-British
Columbia 1952).
The evaluation of water development projects during this period was limited to Cost-
Benefit Analysis - a reflection of the emphasis placed on economic development. However, the evaluation process had been abused over the years by various agencies so as to benefit their pet developments (James and Rogers 1979). Benefits had been included that could 23 not possibly be economically justified, and too many large projects were being justified through the exclusive use of Cost-Benefit Analysis. This abuse led to the standardization of the Cost-Benefit Analysis procedure in 1950 with the publication of "The Green Book", more formally titled The Proposed Practices for the Economic Analysis of River Basin
Projects (Holmes 1972). In Canada, a similar guide to CBA was published in 1961 with the purpose of promoting the use of Cost-Benefit techniques to evaluate all natural resource projects (Sewell et al. 1961).
The most significant story of the 1950s was the struggle over the Echo Park Dam in
Utah (Black 1987). Once again the preservationists and the conservationists took opposite sides over the construction of a large storage reservoir. The dam would have flooded portions of Dinosaur National Monument; however, in contrast to the Hetch-Hetchy controversy of nearly half-a-century before, this time the preservationists prevailed. The
Echo Park struggle provided a new climate for river basin development, and it brought several environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, to national prominence.
Schwartz (1979) characterizes water resource planning at the end of the 1950s as being design oriented, usually undertaken by a single specialized agency. The project's design was to maximize economic benefits through the use of a multiple purpose structure, and project evaluation was generally based on the monetary based benefit cost analysis. If at all, other criteria only entered the evaluation process through the political arena.
2.2.5 1960-1970
Water resource management in many regions, at the beginning of the 1960s, continued to be characterized by single purpose, project oriented, local developments (Sewell 1985).
In addition, there was little communication among resource agencies concerning water resource planning. During this period concerns grew over the possibilities of future water shortages, particularly in the Southwestern United States (Quinn 1985). These concerns resulted in a number of investigations, which were centered around the construction of 24
single purpose structures, such as canals and diversions. A short list of these projects would include the Great Lakes-Pacific Waterways Plan, the North America Water and
Power Alliance (NAWAPA), the Magnum Plan, and the Kuiper Plan (Canada 1973).
These diversions would be used to transfer water from regions of northern Canada to the southern United States. However, these engineering, supply-oriented investigations raised an outcry from both environmentalists and northern populations who began to demand greater public input into the decision making process.
In 1965 Congress passed the Water Resources Planning Act (Holmes 1972). In this
Act Congress set out a policy "to encourage the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis" (United States 1972b). The Act contained three major provisions.
First, it established the Water Resources Council, which was composed of the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, the Interior, and Health, Education and Welfare. The Water
Resources Council was authorized to develop a set of standards, principles and procedures for use in the evaluation of water resource developments. Second, the Act also authorized the creation of Federal-state river basin commissions that were to develop comprehensive plans for water and related land resources, and third, the Federal Government offered financial assistance to those states willing to participate in water resource planning.
The US federal policy towards flood reduction, to this point governed by a single means approach, changed dramatically in 1966 (White 1969). It was recognized that attempting to reduce the loss to flooding by single means was not working; that continued occupation of floodplains was increasing the amount of damage done by flooding despite all the money and effort being placed in structural solutions. In addition, the adverse financial and environmental consequences of excessive floodplain development and protection forced a change in the approach taken to flood damage reduction (James and Rogers 1979). Under the new federal flood policy, the Corps of Engineers was to continue to build flood control projects, but they were to work in conjunction with other agencies and levels of 25 government to encourage the wise use of flood plains (White 1969). This dual approach to flood control brought the formal acceptance of multiple means planning. White (1969) suggests that there were a number of reasons why the multiple means approach to water resources planning and management took so long to be adopted:
- competition between different agencies often obscured alternative
management strategies;
- it was easier to manipulate a single engineering project than several
diverse alternatives;
- an engineering bias affected the rate at which alternative solutions were
adopted;
- many of the alternatives to the traditional structural solution were untried
and had little precedent; and
- often no single agency had authority over the entire system, and thus
each agency was limited in the approaches it could take. For.example, in
flood control, the Corps of Engineers dealt primarily with structural
solutions while the Soil Conservation Service attempted to reduce runoff.
A similar stance on flood control was emulated in Canada in the Flood Damage
Reduction Program, which was started in 1975 (Canada 1982). The Program uses a variety of alternatives to manage floods, including mapping and zoning.
By the close of the decade water resource management had completed a shift that started in the 1950s to a more multiple purpose, multiple means type project planning
(Sewell 1981a). In addition, there was a growing momentum to accommodate the public in the decision making process, which was further influenced at the beginning of the next decade by concerns over the state of the environment.
2.2.6 1970-Present
During the first seven decades of the twentieth century the primary consideration in 26
water resource development was efficiency (Ortolano 1979), although there were other concerns, such as the distribution of the benefits of development. The environmental and social impacts of water resource development were only considered when there was public controversy, such as that over the development of the Hetch Hetchy valley. Even then a considerable amount of public pressure was required to assess and possibly mitigate the adverse impacts.
The first efforts to legislate a requirement that environmental factors be considered systematically occurred in the 1930s. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, subsequently updated in 1946 and 1958, required that the Department of the Interior conduct studies on the impacts of all federal water projects. These early efforts generally led to the consideration of a limited number of environmental factors, but only in the last stages of planning when the project had already been selected. In addition, the recommendations coming out of these studies were merely aimed at mitigating the effects of development rather than enhancing the environment.
The early 1970s witnessed a change in the manner in which the environment was considered in water resource development. One innovation was the much greater emphasis on environmental and social considerations in the decision- making process. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in late 1969 in the United States, and in 1973 the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was adopted in
Canada. Their enactment signaled a growing dissatisfaction with the traditional
evaluation method of Cost-Benefit Analysis. The rising tide of environmental awareness
had made it obvious that Cost-Benefit Analysis was insufficient for a truly comprehensive
evaluation, which would include environmental as well as social impacts. Project
evaluation was thus expanded to include more objectives than those incorporated in the
promotion of national economic development (Dorcey 1987a), primarily environmental
quality (Greenland 1983). 27
The initial environmental impact assessments were based largely on evaluating the impacts of development on biophysical processes (Willeke 1979). However, the process was soon broadened to include the assessment of impacts of resource development on society. This was done by forcing planners to pay more attention to distributional issues and less attention to questions of efficiency (Bracken 1973). The 1930's dictum that benefits and cost be considered "to whomsoever they may accrue" was supplemented by
social impact assessment which determines who bears which costs and receives which benefits (Willeke 1979). The first and best known example of a major Canadian project
which underwent a public review driven by the social issues was the Mackenzie Valley
Pipeline Inquiry that took place between 1974 and 1977 (CEARC 1985). The
Commissioner's recommendation to'defer the Arctic Gas project was based largely on the
potential social and cultural effects on the native peoples.
Environmental and social impact assessment came on the heels of a "consciousness
moving" 1960s, which saw a reaction against a consumer and technological society
(Draper 1978). During this period there was a search for alternative lifestyles, and a
return to a simpler society. In addition, involving the public in the decision making process
was getting added emphasis as one of the benefits of living in a democratic society. With
the advent of NEPA and EARP there was an unprecedented demand for public
involvement (Dorcey 1987a), and the public was given even greater access to decision
makers (Black 1987).
In 1972 the Water Resources Council developed the "Principles and Standards for
planning water and related land resources" (United States 1972b). In the initial version
planning was to be undertaken in terms of four objectives: the promotion of national
economic development and regional economic development, and the enhancement of the
environment, and social well being. In 1973 these objectives were consolidated into two:
national economic development and environmental quality (Fox 1976). The development of
a set of principles and standards represented a constructive step in the evaluation of water 28
resources development by disposing of the criticisms that the justification for development was often too narrowly conceived (United States 1972b).
The early 1970s also witnessed the passage of the Canada Water Act, which emphasized water quality and embraced the comprehensive approach to water resources planning (Pearse et al. 1985). Under the Canada Water Act the Canadian government entered into agreements with several provinces to develop comprehensive water management plans; in British Columbia the Okanagan Basin was chosen to undergo comprehensive planning. In the Okanagan planning process there was a move to clearly identify the objectives, to include the human dimensions, and to involve the public in the planning process (Sewell 1981b). The planning process had three objectives: to increase economic development in the basin, to enhance the environment through management and protection, and to enhance social betterment by creating a more equitable distribution of among other things income and employment (Canada 1975).
While the planning processes done under the Canada Water Act were acknowledged as being successful, they had their weaknesses (Sewell 1981b). The studies were criticized for overemphasizing inventory collections and not focusing on specific issues which produced vague recommendations (Brule et al. 1981). The public participation processes were criticized for delaying the process, undermining the power of local officials, and becoming too concerned with interests of the public. It often took up to two years to implement the recommendations which meant that events often preempted what was finally implemented. Recognizing these shortcomings, the focus of planning activities in
Canada for the remainder of the seventies gradually changed to water resource planning, which was more action oriented and aimed at the resolution of specific water management issues (Pentland 1983).
In 1978 the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by both the United
States and Canada (Canada-United States 1978). This agreement approached basin-wide planning with emphasis on an ecosystem approach to planning. It required an 29 understanding of the total ecosystem and the diverse interactions which occur within its biological, physical, and social boundaries.
By the end of the 1970s, water resources planning viewed water and related land resources and their interrelationships with the physical and social environment as an interdependent system (Schwartz 1979). Planning was done with the input of a number of
agencies, with multiple objective, using multiple means, and with multiple purposes. In
addition, the decision making process was more diffuse, and the public was involved earlier
in the planning process.
The inclusion of an implementation strategy in a plan became the norm in the early
1980s. It had been recommended and suggested prior to this, as the 1970 proposed
Washington State "Water Policy" paper suggested, but rarely carried out. The early
1980s saw processes, such as British Columbia's Strategic Planning process, begin to
include a specific implementation strategy in each plan. The typical implementation
strategy outlined agency responsibilities, a proposed schedule, and estimated costs. In
addition, the B.C. Ministry of Environment went a step farther by recommending that
future changes in societal goals and values would be taken into account by setting out a
five year review schedule for each of the strategic plans developed. This review or re-
evaluation had been discussed earlier, but it was not until planning processes, such as
B.C.'s strategic approach, that a review process was formally implemented.
In 1983 the United States Principles and Standards, adopted in 1973, were replaced by
the Water Resources Commission's "Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies" (Petersen
1984). These new guidelines identified only one objective: "Water resources development
must contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's
environment pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and
other planning requirements". The change was a result of the view taken by the Reagan 30
Administration that the 1973 Principles and Standards did not enable good water development projects to be authorized and constructed fast enough.
Traditionally water has been perceived as a "free" good, one that could be supplied and used without a cost to society (Tate 1988). It is this attitude that has led to the supply and allocation problems now being encountered with great regularity throughout the world.
As supplies of water are threatened the typical response is to locate new supplies of water, often at great expense. However, as budgets have become tighter and supplies fewer there has been a move to managing the demand rather than the supply. This concept of demand management has various roots including: the concept of resource conservation, increasing resource scarcity, multiple means planning, and the concept of Sustainable Development offered in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Economic evaluation has played a role in water resources planning and management
since the 1930s. Early evaluation was primarily concerned with determining the feasibility of development projects, rather than pricing the water resource itself. The
economic relationship between water use and pricing has been recognized for several
decades (Mitchell 1984), but it has only been recently, as demands on the resource have
grown, that the benefits of pricing water have become more apparent.
2.3 SUMMARY
An examination of the history of water resource management reveals the widespread
use of six major management strategies. These strategies range from the simple single
purpose, private construction to the complex multiple means, multiple purpose project
strategy. The management strategies described in this chapter are the "most widespread
and persistent" strategies used (White 1969), but they do not preclude the use of other
management strategies, or combinations, such as multiple purpose management by private
agencies. 31
As water resource planning and management has evolved from simple to the complex it has adopted a series of guiding principles, which will be discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 3. 32
CHAPTER 3 THE PRINCIPLES OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
This chapter discusses the principles of water resources planning and management.
The evolution of these principles was detailed in Chapter 2, and they are used as the basis for assessing water resources plans developed in the Fraser basin in Chapter 6.
3.1 DEFINING THE PRINCIPLES
When examining the field of water resources planning and management there are a number of obvious principles which guide planning and management activities. These principles are not set out as absolute law nor are they necessarily enforced be a controlling
authority (Stanberry 1950). Rather, they are a set of broadly accepted norms, which may
be applied anywhere. Over time the principles have become widely recognized and
accepted by a majority of water resource planners as a general guide to water resource
planning and management.
The purpose behind the principles of water resources planning and management is to
improve efficiency, take external effects of water use into account, and to integrate water
development into social and economic development (Foster and Sewell 1981). The
principles have two main sources: the first being the ideas developed by academics from a
varied range of disciplines, such as economics, planning and geography, and the second
being the practical experience of water planners and managers (Sewell 1988). The
evolution of the principles provides a general yardstick against which the historical
evolution of water resources planning and management in the Fraser River basin can be
assessed.
This thesis uses eleven principles of water resource planning and management as
criteria to assess the historical development of water resources planning in the Fraser
Basin. The eleven principles used are: 33
1) A plan must recognize the various potential uses of the water resource
(multiple purpose or multiple use planning);
2) The plan must consider a number of alternatives for management
(multiple means planning);
3) The planning process must involve the public in the planning process
(public participation);
4) The plan must include economic, environmental, and social goals
(multiple objective planning);
5) The plan must be evaluated using those multiple goals (multiple objective evaluation);
6) The plan must focus on a basin, including watersheds, rather than portions of a basin and integrate all land use and water resources planning and management (basin-wide planning);
7) Water resources must be treated as an economic good through pricing
(treating water as an economic good);
8) Planning must adopt a broader perspective through the integration of different disciplines, sectors, and levels of government into the planning process (integration);
9) Planning must provide some sort of strategy which outlines responsibilities, estimated costs, and schedule (implementation strategy);
10) Provision must be made to reassess or reevaluate a plan at some point in the future to determine how well it is meeting society's needs, and whether it needs to be updated (review strategy); and
11) Planning must promote the formation of local institutions which would
ensure that local needs are met by the plan, while also ensuring there is
some form of political accountability in place (local institutions). 34
While these principles were first accepted in the United States they have also been
adopted with varying lag times to water resources planning and management in Canada.
Below, each principle is defined as it will be used in the assessment. In addition, the
approximate date of acceptance in the United States and Canada is identified.
3.1.1 Basin-Wide Planning
Basin-wide planning has been accepted, if not always practiced, as the ideal scope of
planning activities. Basin-wide planning is an integrated process where water resources
are managed in conjunction with land use (Dixon and Easter 1986). A river basin is an
organic entity (Sewell 1985) with a recognized interdependence among its users (Pearse et
al. 1985) whether they be land or water based. Basins can be as large as the Fraser River
basin or as small as a watershed, such as the Norrish Creek Watershed. Because of the
interdependence between users it is a simple process to identify the interrelationships
between upstream and downstream users, and between land use and water management.
Any interference with or modification of the basin will be felt elsewhere in the basin. Thus
the costs and benefits of development can be shared more equitably in a river basin than
when artificial boundaries separate users.
Basin-wide planning was first accepted in the United States with the creation of the
Tennessee Valley Administration in 1933 (Saha and Barrow 1981). In Canada the
Ontario Conservation Authorities were created in 1946 specifically to manage resources on
a watershed level (Powell 1983), and the previously mentioned Dominion-Provincial Board,
Fraser River Basin, both undertook planning on a basin-wide scale (Canada-British
Columbia 1952).
3.1.2 Multiple purpose planning
Water can be put to many varied uses: as a water supply for industrial, domestic or
agricultural purposes, for recreation, power generation, fisheries habitat, and tourism. In
addition, new uses of water resources are being developed constantly as technology 35 changes (Washington 1970). Many of these uses are interrelated and the use of water for one particular function may well fit in with or detract from the use of water for another function. A multiple purpose approach to water resource planning will take these interrelationships into account and plan for the best combination of uses.
By using the water resource for more than one purpose greater benefits can arise from
planning and management (Scheffer et al. 1969). Thus, a dam once built solely to supply
irrigation water may now also be used to generate electricity, as a recreation area, or as
part of a flood control project.
Multiple purpose planning was first accepted in the United States in the late 1920s
under the "308 Reports" (Schad 1979). One of the first multiple purpose investigations in
Canada was the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin which was initiated in
1948 (Sewell 1965).
3.1.3 Local Institutions
The concept of using local institutions in the management of water resources has
existed since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933. This was one of the
first instances when a local institution was given decision making control over local
resources (Selznick 1984). In Canada, similar control was given in 1946 to the Ontario
Conservation Authorities who were responsible for the development and conservation of
local resources (Powell 1983).
Today, the call for regional resource management is a response to the public's growing
frustration with decision makers who are far removed from the region affected by their
decisions (Fox No Date). In addition, many people feel that traditional resource
management institutions fail to make decision makers accountable for their decisions.
Often political leaders are insulated from the public by a layer of career civil servants who
deal with the public on a day to day basis. It is often argued that because these civil 36 servants are in such close contact with the public that they are accountable. However, the civil servants are often hamstrung by decisions made by politicians.
Creating institutions responsible for the management of water resources at the local level will give local people a greater voice in making the decisions that directly affect them.
Local management institutions will also bring government closer to the people it serves and will make it more responsive to their needs and preferences (Advisory Commission
1972). Localizing water resource planning and management will allow greater numbers of people to participate with greater effectiveness in the decision making process (United
Nations 1962).
In addition, localizing resource management will allow the development and application of policies that fit that particular region's specific needs (Schwab 1988). This in is contrast
to federal or provincial legislation that must be broad enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations. Decentralizing management also implies that decision makers will be
more responsive to the environmental implications and local political, economic, and social
considerations of development (Price 1959).
The effectiveness of decentralization is dependent on two factors: the proper
coordination of all components that are involved in local resource management, and that
the decentralization process is associated with the devolution of power (Selznick 1984).
The decentralizing of management responsibilities without a corresponding devolution of
power is simply deconcentration, which is only paying lip service to the needs of the local
population.
3.1.4 Integration
Traditional approaches to water resource planning and management have generally
involved only a limited number of disciplines from a number of specialized agencies
(Washington 1970). Often these agencies were at different levels of government, working
independently of one another. This approach has often led to conflict and duplication of 37 efforts, a trend, which without integration will increase in the future as demands on the resource multiply.
The integration of all relevant governments, agencies and professions will make water resource planning and management more effective. Integration will also make more efficient use of scarce resources, and will increase cooperation among agencies involved in water resources planning and management. Methods used in the past for integrating various parties interested in the management of a particular resource include referrals, guidelines, taskforces, inter-agency committees, and integrating agencies.
Integration in water resources planning and management has been an evolving process. The integration of various agencies was accepted in the United States in the early 1940s, and since then integration has broadened to include a variety of sectors and disciplines (Schad 1979). In Canada there is no specific incident that reflects a trend towards integration in the planning process. It should be noted however, that both the
Dominion-Provincial Board and the Fraser River Board involved key federal and provincial agencies as well as many different disciplines (Canada-British Columbia 1952; Canada-
British Columbia 1956).
3.1.5 Multiple means planning
Under various conditions there are any number of management alternatives available with regard to engineering, management practices, institutional arrangements, the timing and size of projects, and the utilization of non-water related programs for achieving policy objectives (Washington 1970). In the past however, water management has focused primarily on familiar management strategies, especially those involving construction, while less common alternatives were only given minor consideration (Sewell 1985). The risk of such a narrow focus on alternatives is that the management strategy selected may not be the most cost effective alternative. In addition, a singular approach to solving a problem often creates as many problems as it solves. While we cannot ignore the structural or 38 technological option, there needs to be less emphasis placed on such alternatives.
Expanding the range of approaches used in the management of water can maximize both the social and economic returns (Foster and Sewell 1981).
Multiple means planning gained wide acceptance in the United States in 1967 following the adoption of a new federal flood policy, which promoted alternatives to traditional structural controls (Figure 3) (White 1969). In Canada similar measures are found in the
Federal Government's Flood Damage Reduction Program which was instituted in 1975
(Canada 1982).
3.1.6 Multiple Objective Planning
Until recently the overriding objective of water resource planning was to foster economic growth (Washington 1970). If a plan failed to include growth as an objective it was, at minimum, considered deficient and often considered not to be planning at all. While still a primary goal, economic growth is no longer considered the only objective in water resources planning and management. In the late 1960s and early 70s, concerns over the quality of the environment and the impact of water development on society made the enhancement of the environment and society one of the objectives of water resource planning and management. The Water Resources Council's original four principles and standards included: national economic development, regional economic development, environmental quality, and social betterment (United States 1972b).
Multiple objective planning became the norm after the United States' Water Resources
Council released their Principles and Standards in 1973 (United States 1973). These
Principles and Standards were adopted by some of the planning processes carried out in the early 1970s under the Canada Water Act, such as the Okanagan Basin Study (Canada
1975). FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL STRATEGIES
Structural Solutions -Dykes -Diversions -Storage Dams -Drainage
Non-structural Solutions -Floodproof ing -Floodplain Mapping -Floodplain Zoning -Emergency Measures -Flood Insurance 40
3.1.7 Multiple Objective Evaluation
Many of the challenges facing water resource planners and managers today are economic and social, but most are environmental because water resource development by its very nature can be very disruptive of the natural environment (Dee 1973). In the past the evaluation of plans was limited to Cost-Benefit Analysis, which over time has proven a poor measure of possible environmental or social impacts. With the adoption of a multiple objective approach to water resources planning and management, it became necessary to evaluate plans in a different manner than traditionally accepted. This led to the introduction of Environmental Impact Analysis and later, Social Impact Analysis. These two forms of evaluation have not supplanted Cost-Benefit Analysis as the accepted form of evaluation, but have been incorporated into the evaluation process in an attempt to make it more comprehensive.
Multiple objective evaluation became the norm in the early 1970s in both the United
States and Canada with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in the
United States (Ortolano 1979) and the Environmental Assessment and Review Process and provincial equivalents in Canada (Mitchell and Turkhiem 1977).
3.1.8 Public Participation
Public consultation is a two way communication between project or plan proponents and the public. Arnstein (1969) defines public participation as the means by which power is redistributed and those citizens which are not currently included in the economic and political process are deliberately included in the future. She has developed a ladder of citizen participation which extends from the citizen being manipulated by decision makers to total citizen control of the decision making process (Figure 4).
In the ladder of citizen participation each rung corresponds to the extent of citizens' power in determining the end product (Arnstein 1969). For example, rungs (1)
Manipulation and (2) Therapy describe levels of "non-participation" in which the party in 41
FIGURE 4 A LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Rung Citizen control 8 Delegated power Degrees of citizen power 7 Partnership 6 Placation 5 Consultation Degrees of tokenism 4 Informing 3 Therapy 2 Nonparticipation Manipulation J 1
Reprinted from: Arnstein, S.R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation". Journal of the American Institute of Planners. (July 1969): 216-224. 42
power attempts to educate the public; whereas, rungs (7) Delegated power and (8) Citizen control indicate situations where citizens have obtained the majority of decision making
seats, or full managerial power. Each rung is associated with a different form of participation, from advisory committees to taskforces to citizen control councils.
Effective public participation has many benefits. By involving the local populace in
decision making, resource managers can make use of local knowledge and expertise, and
expose project alternatives (Pearse et al. 1985). Widespread public involvement will also
disseminate information, which may reduce apprehension, polarization, and conflict over a
project or plan. Effective participation also promotes compromise when conflicts do arise.
By incorporating an active public participation program, water resource planners can
enhance the credibility of the program and its policies. Inviting citizen response may form
a positive partnership between proponents and affected parties, which increases the
likelihood of project success within an impacted community. Failure to create a working
relationship often results in the formation of ad hoc opposition that can be time-consuming
and costly to contend with (Griffith 1979).
Public participation in the decision making process was accepted in the early 1970s in
both Canada and the United States as a result of ideological pressures concerning
democracy. The environmental assessment procedures adopted in Canada and the United
States both encouraged participation in the planning and management process (Dorcey
1987a).
3.1.9 Implementation Strategy
A plan's recommendations will only be as effective as its implementation strategy will
allow, and a plan will only be of academic interest unless it can be implemented
(Washington 1970). An effective plan will not only include recommendations, but also an
outline of steps to be taken, subject to continual renewal and updating. The
implementation strategy may assign specific management agencies with the responsibility 43
for undertaking recommendations within their mandates. The implementation strategy may also include a schedule detailing when specific actions should be taken and often an estimate on expected costs and proposed budget.
The acceptance of implementation strategies in water resource plans has been an evolving process. In the United States the importance of implementation strategies was noted in the proposed Washington State "Water Policy" paper (Washington 1970), and in the early 1980s implementation strategies became the norm as reflected in their use in the strategic plans developed in British Columbia.
3.1.10 Review Process
Effective planning is a continuous activity, one in which there can be no completion date (Washington 1970). As time progresses, goals and objectives, and the weights
associated with each, may lose emphasis and change. To have these changes reflected in
the plan there must be some manner of review or re-evaluation at periodic intervals, even
after the plan has been developed. Unless this periodic review occurs, decisions that were
made during the course of the planning process will lead to a state of inflexibility. It is
essential that reconsideration be made part of the planning process so that planning
doesn't become simply a one-shot process for producing a quickly outdated plan.
The review or re-evaluation concept is reflected in the adaptive management strategy
advocated by Holling and others (Walters 1986). This management strategy treats
management as an adaptive learning process, where management activities are viewed as
the primary tools of experimentation. The "basic tenet of adaptive management is that
management involves a continual learning process that cannot be conveniently separated
into functions like 'research' and 'ongoing regulatory activities', and probably will never
converge to a state of blissful equilibrium involving full knowledge and optimum
productivity". 44
In addition, there have been moves to accommodate future changes by designing planning and management organizations rather than depending on set plans. An example found in the Fraser River Estuary is the Fraser Estuary Management Program (FREMP).
Institutions, such as FREMP, are ongoing planning processes which are better equipped to respond to changes in societal values, and environmental conditions.
The concept of review, re-evaluation, or adaptive management has evolved over the past two decades in a manner similar to that of the implementation strategy. The 1970 proposed Washington State "Water Policy" paper suggests that the periodic review of plans is an important process (Washington 1970). The strategic planning process
undertaken in 1982 by British Columbia intended to have the plans re-evaluated every five years (O'Riordan 1981).
3.1.11 Water as an Economic Good
Water has traditionally been treated as a free good, as though the cost of supplying
and disposing of it had no cost (Sewell 1985), and treated as such, there is a distinct
tendency to overuse it (Mitchell 1984). Even where there is some cost applied to supplying
water it is generally nominal and bears little relationship to the cost of supplying it or the
value derived from its use. Undervaluing water has also contributed to a pre-occupation
with the structural or technological manipulation of supply systems. Exaggerated
demands lead to the construction of overbuilt water supply systems, which drain public
treasuries and create a supply of water that leads to increased demand, starting the
demand cycle over again.
As regional supplies of fresh water become scarce there is a call for water resources
to be treated like any other resource, as an economic good that can be traded on the
market (Sewell 1985). This may include levying a fee for the use of water, which would
reflect the cost of supplying the resource. 45
A new water management strategy that mixes supply and demand management could be instituted through the pricing of water (Mitchell 1984). The pricing of water would act to discourage its waste and at the same time provide an incentive to use water effectively. By pricing water the environmental and social costs associated with its supply could be passed on to those who use it. Pricing water will also act in reducing the costs spent on infrastructure as demands are reduced, and further revenues would be generated to pay for needed infrastructure.
Mitchell (1984) notes that several alternative mechanisms have been developed to value water. The first method involves assigning a value with regard to the "next best alternative". This method would reflect the cost of obtaining and delivering alternative supplies. The second method involves establishing a value with reference to the value added to the consumer's products or satisfaction. For example, agricultural products would be valued differently depending on whether irrigation was used. The third alternative suggested would involve assigning a value to water as it is developed, as is done with other natural resources. The cost to the user would then reflect the value of the water plus the cost of pumping, treating, and distributing.
Pricing water is not a new concept and has had limited acceptance in the literature for several decades, but has not been implemented widely except for those regions suffering severe water deficiencies. It has gained growing popularity recently as supplies of water have grown less, and as the concept has been promoted by Commissions such as the World
Commission on Environment and Development (Tate 1988).
3.2 SUMMARY
The principles discussed in this chapter have aided water resources management in meeting the challenges and crises it has been confronted with over the past century. From planning to meet the needs of an entire river basin to involving the public in the decision making process these principles have allowed water resource planning and management to 46
better meet the needs of society. No longer are singular approaches taken to managing the resources, and no longer are the benefits of management taken for granted.
Consideration of the possible environmental and social affects, in addition to the economic costs and benefits, is a primary activity in water resource management. At different points over the past century there have been different sets of "accepted" principles. Water resource plans developed in the 1950s would have been completed under a different set of contemporary principles than plans completed today.
In general the principles evolved and were accepted in the United States before Canada.
This is especially true of those principles, such as multiple purpose and basin-wide planning, which evolved prior to 1960. Since 1960 the lag between a principle's acceptance in the United States and Canada has shortened considerably to the point where the principles may be accepted simultaneously. Principles which were accepted in Canada at approximately the same time in the United States include implementation and review strategies, and treating water as an economic good. 47
CHAPTER 4 THE FRASER RIVER BASIN CASE STUDY
This chapter describes the geography of the Fraser River Basin, the institutional framework and the organization of water resources planning in BC, and the different strategies of water resources planning that have been used in the basin.
4.1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE FRASER RIVER BASIN
The Fraser River is 1100 km long and drains a region of 230,000 km , an area as large as West Germany or Colorado (Figure 5), and with the exception of 453 km^ found in Washington, the entire basin is located within the Province of British Columbia (Figure
6). The Fraser has its source in several small lakes in the Rocky Mountains near
Yellowhead Pass at an elevation of 1,200 meters. From its snow-fed headwaters, the river flows in a northwesterly direction along the Rocky Mountain Trench paralleling the
British Columbia-Alberta border. The river then skirts the northern tip of the Columbia
Mountains before turning southward. It then flows over the Interior Plateau, carving a deep channel through the landscape, before entering the Coast Mountains. Here the river has continued to erode a deep channel to Hope, where it begins its westward flow. The valley then widens and the river flows 150 km across its delta before entering the Strait of
Georgia south of Vancouver.
The Fraser River has several significant tributaries including the Thompson, the
Quesnel, the Nechako, the McGregor and the Chilcotin. In addition, there are numerous minor tributaries, such as the Chilliwack, Harrison, West Road and Lillooet. There are also many lakes within the basin, forty of which are greater than 25 km . The largest lakes are Eutsuk, Francois, Takla, Shuswap, and Adams.
Within the basin there are vast resources of forests and minerals, and the river itself is home to one of the world's most valuable salmon stocks. In addition, the Fraser River FIGURE 6 - BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE FRASER BASIN 49
and its tributaries also have the power potential of some 8 million KW, although only a small portion has been developed at present (Sewell 1977). There are also large cattle ranches located in the interior while dairy farms and market gardens are common throughout the Lower Fraser Valley. Many of these agricultural operations, especially those in the interior, are dependent on irrigation. A total of about 200,000 hectares could be irrigated in the basin (Patrick 1964).
The harbours located at the mouth of the river see the arrival of over 4000 vessels, carrying a wide variety of goods, each year. In addition, the river's estuary is the site of the most widespread urban development in the province, and home in 1986 to 1.2 million of the province's residents (pers. comm. M. McPhee 1989). Other significant cities located in the basin include Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, and Kamloops.
4.2 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Just as water resources planning in the Fraser basin has evolved so has the institutional framework in which it is undertaken. Provincial and Federal jurisdiction over water is outlined in the British North America Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of
1982. Various pieces of Federal and Provincial legislation have been enacted over time that define government's authority to plan and manage the nation's water resources. In addition, there have also been a number of different government departments, branches or agencies, which have had water management responsibilities over the years.
This institutional evolution has been influenced by factors outside of government, and the following thumbnail sketch attempts to not only describe the evolution of government institutions and legislation, but also to outline some of the most influential factors affecting government at the time decisions concerning water resource planning were made. 50
4.2.1 The Constitutional Foundation
The basis for any jurisdictional claim to the water resource in the Fraser River basin is
found in the British North America Act (BNA) of 1867, and the Constitution Act of 1982.
In Section 91 of the BNA the Federal Government is given exclusive jurisdiction over
fisheries and navigation among other responsibilities: In Section 92 of the BNA the
province's law-making power over water is found in the clauses which assign them
jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and the management and sale of public lands.
Other parts of the constitution give the provinces control over local works and
undertakings. Provincial rights were expanded in Section 92a of the Constitution Act,
which gave the provinces jurisdiction over the generation of hydroelectric power. However,
provincial jurisdiction and legislative capacity is limited by the overriding authority of the
Federal Government.
4.2.2 Federal Legislation and Institutions
Following World War Two federal interest in the development of Canada's water
resources quickened (Quinn 1985). Water resources management was primarily concerned
with generating hydroelectricity, flood control, and supplying water for domestic and
industrial use (Dorcey 1987a) In the early 1950s there were a number of initiatives
designed to encourage national and regional economic growth including: federal laws,
institutions and cooperative arrangements (Quinn 1985). The Dominion- Provincial Board,
Fraser River Basin was one such cooperative arrangement in which the Federal
government took part (examples from the Fraser River basin listed in this chapter are
discussed in greater detail in the following chapters). Serious flooding in British Columbia,
Manitoba, and southern Ontario precipitated more federal legislation, including the 1953
Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, which was intended to make federal funds
available, primarily for flood control works. However, the Act's rigid requirements forced 51
separate agreements to be drafted before funds were released for dyking projects in the
Fraser basin.
Another piece of federal legislation that has played an important role in the Fraser
River basin is the 1970 Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is an amalgamation of amendments, some of which predate Confederation (Pearse et al. 1985). The Act is the
Federal government's main instrument in managing fish by regulating fishing and fish stocks. The Act's primary tool of regulation with respect to land and water use is in its provisions for protecting fishery habitat. These provisions allow the Federal Government to have some say in any activity that may be adversely affecting areas frequented by fish, such as spawning beds.
The 1960s were marked by a reorganization of federal water functions. A water section was created in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR), the freshwater side of which eventually became the Inland Waters Directorate, and the
Canada Center for Inland Waters was created in Burlington, Ontario. In 1966 an interim
Interdepartmental Committee on Water was created and chaired by EMR to coordinate federal government water activities.
By the end of 1960s competition for the available water resources was becoming intense (Brule et al. 1981). In addition, the public's concern over pollution and other consequences of traditional water management schemes was growing. In 1967 the
Federal Government, recognizing the scale at which future development of water was going to occur and the conflicts which would result, decided to take a more active role in the planning and management of the nation's water resources (Quinn 1985). The Federal
Government then instigated discussions with the provinces about conducting a series of joint comprehensive river basin planning exercises, and in 1969 four river basins, including the Okanagan Basin, were selected as the first basins to undergo this new approach (Brule et al. 1981). 52
This new direction in federal policy towards water resources planning and management was legislated in 1970, when the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act was repealed and replaced with the 1970 Canada Water Act (Quinn 1985). The Canada Water Act was a major innovation in water resources management that specifically authorizes the Federal
Government to enter into agreements with the provinces to conduct research and water inventories, formulate comprehensive plans, and execute projects. In addition, the Canada
Water Act had specific water quality provisions which involved setting up joint federal-
provincial regional water quality management agencies. At the time water pollution was
the dominant federal concern (Dorcey 1987a). In the late 1970s, under the auspices of the
Canada Water Act, the Federal Government signed separate agreements with the
Province of British Columbia to complete a preplanning study of the Thompson Basin, and
to undertake the Fraser River Estuary Study in the Fraser River basin.
Shortly after the Canada Water Act was passed, Environment Canada was formed and
given power over water issues not assigned to other departments by the Government
Organization Act of 1970 (Brule et al. 1981). The Inland Waters Directorate of
Environment Canada is responsible for water planning and implementation functions
promoted under the Canada Water Act. Other branches of Environment Canada have
roles in water management, including the Environmental Protection Service, Parks
Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Atmospheric Environment Service. Federal
departments outside of Environment Canada which also have an interest in water
management are: Fisheries and Oceans, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, National Health and Welfare, Transport, the Coast Guard and a number of
others (Table 2).
In 1973 the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was created by
the Federal cabinet (Dorcey 1987b). This process was designed to determine the
environmental impacts and recommend controls for any project using federal funds or
lands. One of the first projects to undergo an environmental impact assessment was the TABLE 2 SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES^ ROLES IN MATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY RELEVANT FUNCTIONS LEGISLATIVE BASE
Environment Canada Agencies
Environmental Develops industrial waste Fisheries Act Protection discharge regulations; Canada Mater Act Service administers nutrient controls Envi ronmental regulates production of Contaminants Act environmental contaminants; monitors federal activities
Atmospheric Gathers and analyzes data on Department of Envi ronment precipitation, snow cover, ice, Environment Act Service evaporation, temperature, Envi ronmental radiation, and other factors Contaminants Act affecting water.
Canadian Mildlife Carrries on-activities to Canada Mildlife Service preserve endangered waterfowl Act habitat, research into effects Migratory Birds of pollution on wildlife, and Convention research on aquatic ecology and limnology in national parks
Parks Canada Maneges water resources of national National Parks parks, including water supply, fish Act protection and pollution prevention; administers historic canals, and heritage rivers system.
Other Departments Fisheries and Conducts research on all factors Fisheries Act Oceans influencing fresh and marine Department of fisheries, flora, fauna, including Fisheries and pollution: maintains fishery habitat Oceam Aci
Indian Affairs Manages water resources in the Yukon Northern Inland and Northern and HW Territories and Indian Reserves Haters Act Development where it constructs and operates Artie Haters facilities for water supply and waste Pollution disposal, regulate power production Prevention Act on federal lands and in the Indian Act Terri tories Dominion Hater Power Act Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Transport Regulates aspects dealing with Canada Shipping Act shipping and navigation in inland and Act territorial waters; regulates works Navigable Haters affecting navigation and prohibits Protection Act rubbish dumping in navigable waters.
National Health Undertakes research programs Nation Health and and Welfare concerning the effects of pollution Helfare Act on health Environmental Contaminants Act
External AffeirE Conducts relations with other countries External Affairs Act including the U.S. over boundary water Boundary Haters issues; represents Canada in Treaty Act communication with International Joint Commission.
Reprinted from: Brule. B., F.-Quinn, J. Wiebe, and B. Mitchell. (1981). An Evaluation of the River Basin Planning and Implementation Programs. Inland Waters Directorate. Ottawa, ON:Environment Canada. 54
proposed expansion of the Vancouver International Airport at the mouth of the Fraser
River estuary in 1973.
The late 1970s found many questions being asked concerning the direction of federal natural resource management. Comprehensive river basin planning under the Canada
Water Act was found to be expensive and time consuming. In addition, it was found the
EARP left much to desired, and was not being applied consistently from project to project
(Rees 1981).
In 1988 the Federal Government enacted the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
This Act is primarily concerned with regulating the introduction of toxic materials into the environment; for example, the Act has provisions regulating the amount of nutrients entering the nation's water supply. The Act also has provisions for regulating Federal works, undertakings, and lands and waters where existing laws may not apply.
Other Acts which are used by the Federal government to manage the water resource, both directly and indirectly, include: the 1970 Canada Shipping Act, the 1970 Atomic
Energy Control Act, and the 1970 Navigable Waters Protection Act.
4.2.3 Provincial Legislation and Institutions
Provincial interest in regulating water supply and allocation goes back to 1859 and the
Gold Fields Act, which granted rights to use the water, but not necessarily to the riparian owner (British Columbia 1967). This principle was adopted in 1909 with the passage of the first Provincial Water Act which has subsequently been amended several times. The
Act places greater emphasis on water allocation and regulation rather than long-term management (O'Riordan 1981). For example, licenses for consumptive use may be granted until the stream flow is fully allocated. This may result in conflicts between in- stream uses, such as fisheries, and consumptive uses, such as irrigation. Once issued, licenses are difficult to rescind as long as the water is being used for the purposes set out in the license. 55
Under the 1979 Water Act, environmental conflicts were treated as incidental issues, and addressed in various subsections of the Act (Dorcey 1987). The urban and industrial expansion in the post war years brought concerns over water quality, particularly in the lower Fraser River, and in 1967 the Pollution Control Act was passed. This Act created a waste permitting system in which all discharges to the land or water were required to be registered and permitted.
Administration of the Pollution Control Act was handled by the Pollution Control Board
(Sproule-Jones and Peterson 1976). The Board established objectives for five classes of waste dischargers, which were based on internal technical studies and public hearings.
These objectives represented a combination of technological, financial and environmental considerations, and set limits on how much waste a particular class of discharger could release into the environment.
In 1971 the Environment and Land Use Act created the Environment and Land Use
Committee (ELUC) composed of Provincial cabinet resource ministers. The committee was intended to resolve disputes between resource agencies. In 1973 ELUC was augmented by a secretariat, which was to facilitate coordination between departments, and to assist
ELUC in its studies.
The ELUC secretariat also instituted a move towards regional resource management
(Dorcey 1987b). To this end, in 1974, the province was divided into seven Resource
Management Regions (RMRs) (Figure 7). Each resource ministry was to then move their regional headquarters to a common site within each RMR. In addition, within each RMR a
Regional Resource Management Committee (RRMC) was to be formed, made up of representatives from each relevant resource agency. However, not all of the RMRs had a management committee formed. The purpose of these committees was to coordinate resource management activities, and initiate integrated studies.
In 1977, the Department of Environment, created in 1975, was made a ministry, and in 1980 the Ministry of Environment Act established its duties. The Ministry is charged 56
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGIONS
FIGURE 7 Reprinted from: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1974). Environment and Landuse Committee Secretariat Yearbook. Victoria. 57
with managing the environment, undertaking environmental inventories, assisting in planning, and the protection and conservation of natural resources, including water. The establishment of the Ministry of Environment led to the absorption of the ELUC secretariat, the addition of the Fish and Wildlife Branch and Marine Resources Branch, and the removal of the Land Management Branch (Dorcey 1987b). The Ministry also began to regionalize its operations in order to become more effective. The original seven
RMRs were split into eight administrative regions (Figure 8).
The Ministry of Environment's current water resource management responsibilities are water allocation, stream protection and water quality protection (British Columbia
1989a). Its regulatory responsibilities concerning water are: water licensing, waste permits and approvals, and water approvals for facilities installed in water courses. The
Ministry's service responsibilities include advising local governments on the designation of flood hazard lands and the development of flood-control/flood-proofing programs.
Water resource planning and policy making are mandated under the Environmental
Management Act of 1980. This Act extends the duties of the Ministry of Environment to
include, among others, environmental policy making and the preparation of management
plans. The Act also gives the Minister of Environment the right to require impact
assessments on all B.C. projects, with the ultimate right to prevent projects from
continuing. However, this right has never been extended to water works in B.C. Project
assessment was augmented in 1980 by the B.C. Utilities Commission Act which was
intended to ensure that environmental and social impacts were considered.
In 1979 the Pollution Control Branch, created under the Pollution Control Act, was
renamed the Waste Management Branch (Dorcey 1987b). This change in names was to
emphasize the weight then being given to controlling waste generation and recycling. In
1982 the Pollution Control Act was repealed and the Waste Management Act was passed
to replace it.
59
In 1982 the province decided to take a different approach to water management
(O'Riordan 1981) by building on an earlier ELUC secretariat initiative (Dorcey 1987b).
This new approach was to incorporate the best aspects of the joint federal-provincial planning efforts with the simple administration found in earlier provincial studies, such as the hydrological studies done in the Nicola Valley (O'Riordan 1981). This new strategic approach to water resource planning involved the division of the eight administrative regions into forty-one strategic planning units (Figure 9). Plans were then to be developed for each sub-regional area or strategic planning unit. Initially the hope was to complete eight strategic plans per year until they were all completed.
This interest in water resource planning was maintained in the early 1980s by a booming resource economy, and expectations of further energy development (Dorcey
1987b). The boom went bust however, and there was a sudden contraction in provincial
interest in the management of the province's natural resources. In 1983 this contraction
was fueled with the re-election of the Social Credit government, which believed that
government had grown too large and too interventionist, especially in the management of
the province's natural resources. This led to budgets being slashed, the Regional Resource
Management Committees being abolished, a reduction in the number of administrative
regions from eight to five, and a severe reduction in the number of personnel available to
manage the water resource.
Other provincial statutes dealing with water include the Drainage, Ditch and Dyke Act
(1978), the Dyke Maintenance Act (1978), the Dyking Authority Act (1965), the
Riverbank Protection Act (1978), and the Water Utility Act (1973).
4.2.4 The Provincial Hierarchy of Water Resources Planning
Currently the province's water resources are planned on three distinct levels: a
Strategic Program level, sub-regional planning, and operational or point of interest
planning (Table 3).
61
TABLE 3 - THE HIERARCHY OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING LEVEL UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
Strategic -Province -Broad policy plans Program establishing long-term goals for environmental management and to provide a context for Ministry submissions to integrated planning processes
Sub-regional -Major River -A management plan (Strategic) basin* establishing quantified (e.g.Nicola resource management River basin) objectives for the planning horizon, based on an analysis of both the demand for, and supply of water resources. Sets out management programs for a period (3-5yrs), designed to accomplish the longer term objectives.
Operational -Tributary -Short-term, intensive, (Point of watershed action plans Interest) (e.g. Norrish Creek)
Reprinted from: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1986). Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C.
^kNone of the strategic plans developed to date have been on the scale of a major river basin. The majority, like the Nicola plan, have been for small sub-basins, portions of sub-basins, or watersheds. 62
There have been many different labels given to different levels of planning in British
Columbia, which can cause confusion. In this thesis strategic planning refers to those area plans developed in the early to mid-1980s by the province. A Strategic Program plan for the Water Management Branch is currently being developed and was not assessed.
4.3 PLANNING STRATEGIES USED IN THE FRASER BASIN
Water resources planning in British Columbia has taken several different forms.
These varying forms have often been developed in response to some perceived shortcoming in the traditional planning or management process. The following discussion is meant to provide the reader with a brief introduction to some of the types of planning processes used in the Fraser Basin over the past four decades.
4.3.1 Strategic Planning
In recent decades the Province of British Columbia has tried a number of approaches to water resources planning, all of which suffer from deficiencies (O'Riordan 1983). The early studies undertaken by the Province tended to be reactive, concentrating solely on a specific problem, such as water shortages in the Nicola Valley or water quality in the
Wood-Kalamalka Lakes. In contrast, the joint Federal-Provincial studies, such as the
Okanagan Basin Agreement, were more comprehensive, wider in scope, and in general considered a wider range of resources. These latter studies also had their problems, the major one being a cumbersome administrative structure.
In the early 1980s the Province undertook an approach to water resources planning, which was a response to the Ministry's view that demands on the water resource were outstripping the available supplies at current management levels (British Columbia 1986).
In addition, budget restraints required that priorities be set for the planning and management of the province's water resources (O'Riordan 1981). This strategic approach was intended to be both comprehensive and administratively flexible with the main aspects being: 63
- It is undertaken on a regional level, such as a
river basin,
- It integrates all resource issues.
- It relies on existing data.
- It provides an explicit framework for allocating
and managing water, and specifically considers
the institutional resources required to undertake
the plan.
Strategic planning identifies management priorities for all water and related resources, with the following objectives:
- to determine present and future resource demands in the region,
- to assess the environment's ability to meet these demands,
- to evaluate management options for balancing supply and demand,
- to establish management goals for all resources,
to develop management programs that will implement plan
recommendations, and
- to monitor performance and reiterate the planning process at various
intervals.
It was hoped that strategic plans would provide regional water managers with a flexible policy framework within which they would be able to make specific regulatory decisions such as granting water licences (British Columbia 1983). The Ministry of
Environment originally wanted to complete forty strategic plans which would allow them to do meaningful resource analysis, but at the same time give them an overview of management issues (O'Riordan 1981). Over the past eight years a total of sixteen strategic environmental plans have been completed (British Columbia 1989a) 64
Examples of strategic plans include the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan, which was the initial strategic plan, the Thompson-Bonaparte Strategic Environmental Management
Plan, and the Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan.
4.3.2 Preplanning Studies
In the mid-1970's it was recognized that the comprehensive planning approach used in earlier Federal-Provincial basin studies was still valuable, but that its focus could be sharpened by a limited preplanning study (Pentland 1983). Therefore a preplanning study would be undertaken when it became apparent that there was not a clear understanding of the scope of a particular problem or problems, or the relationship between them (Canada-
British Columbia 1981).
Preplanning is a critical activity because not only does it determine the nature of the problem(s), but it also determines the amount of resources required to undertake the planning studies (Brule et al. 1981). The objective of a preplanning study is to compile all available documented information, and then combine it with the knowledge of professionals and the public to gain an understanding of the problems facing a particular region
(Canada-British Columbia 1981). A preplanning study should reveal how problems and concerns could be approached in relation to the region. Once the region's water management issues were determined, the preplanning study would develop a proposal on what should be included in a more in-depth planning exercise.
The lone preplanning study done in the Fraser River basin is the Thompson Basin
Preplanning Task Force Report, completed in 1981.
4.3.3 Environmental Assessment and Review Process
The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was established by Cabinet in 1973 (Canada 1979). The process is intended to determine in advance the potential environmental impact of federal projects, programs, and activities. All Federal 65
departments and agencies are bound by the Process except for Crown Corporations and regulatory agencies which are invited to participate.
When a project is initiated the initiating federal departments or agencies are responsible for both initial assessment and for determining the significance of the environmental impacts. The project undergoes a variety of processes, including an
Environmental Screening, and if the project's affects are still questioned it then undergoes an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE). Following the IEE, if the environmental effects of the project are thought to be significant, then the project is referred by the initiating department to the Minister of the Environment for a formal review under EARP.
A formal review has many stages, including putting together the review panel, establishing the guidelines for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), preparing the
EIS, conducting technical and scientific reviews of the EIS, implementing an extensive public involvement program, and the preparation of a report to the Minister of the
Environment outlining recommendations as to whether the project should proceed. The final decision as to whether the project should proceed rests with the Minister of the
Environment, the Minister of the initiating department and Cabinet.
There have been several Environmental Assessment and Review Panels completed in the Fraser River basin, including the CN Twin Tracking EARP and the Fraser-Thompson
Corridor EARP.
4.3.4 Integrated Watershed Management Plans
Many community watersheds are not only a source of water, but also of a valuable supply of harvestable timber (British Columbia 1984). It is often in the community's best interest to manage the watershed for both water supply and timber production. The management must be guided by comprehensive planning which identifies integrated use potentials and opportunities, and also identifies management conditions required to ensure compatibility. Integrated watershed management planning is the dual responsibility of the 66
Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. When there is a perceived need for watershed planning these two agencies are the instigators, and they take the lead in the planning process.
A Provincial Task Force was formed in 1972 to consider the multiple use of community watersheds (British Columbia 1988). In 1980 the Task Force published "Guidelines for
Watershed Management of Crown Lands used as Community Water Supplies"; Appendix
H was published in 1984 and outlined provincial policy and procedures for community watershed planning.
The only Integrated Watershed Management Plan completed in the Fraser River basin to date is the 1988 Norrish Creek IWMP.
4.4 SUMMARY
Just as the principles of water resources planning and management have evolved so has the legislative and institutional framework in which it has taken place. This evolution has been driven by a variety of factors including changes in society's values, increasing concerns over pollution and the state of the environment, and budget restraining measures.
As this evolution has occurred there have been several different types of planning done in the Fraser River basin. For example, strategic planning was undertaken in response to the percieved deficiencies in the joint federal-provincial studies of the 1970s. In the same way preplanning, environmental impact assessment, integrated watershed planning were all done to fill a shortcoming of older methods of planning, or were done in response to a lack of planning or assessment. In the next chapter the history of water resources planning in the Fraser River basin is laid out for the reader. 67
CHAPTER 5
HISTORY OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN
The history of water resources planning and management along the Fraser prior to
1948 is dominated by dyking and drainage improvements. This history is summarized by
J.L. McDonald in his article "History of Dykes and Drainage in BC" which appeared in the
1957 volume of Transactions: Proceedings of the British Columbia Natural Resource
Conference. Other channel improvements, such as dredging, bank protection, and snag removal were conducted by the Dominion Public Works Department and were
summarized in a report to the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin in 1948.
Information regarding the use of the Fraser or its many tributaries for power generation is found in the 1954 edition of Water Powers of British Columbia (British Columbia 1954).
The following account of water management in the Fraser River Basin is taken from these
documents.
5.1 WATER RESOURCE ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO 1948
5.1.1 Dyking and Drainage
The first systematic effort to manage water along the Fraser river took place in 1864
when Samuel Brighouse constructed dykes on Lulu Island (McDonald 1957). This
experience clearly demonstrated the benefits of dyking lowlands, and the abundance of
cheap crown land available in the Fraser river floodplain ensured that development would
take place quickly. As dyking became more popular many dyking companies, such as the
Matsqui Land Company and the BC Dyking and Drainage Company, were formed to
construct dykes along the river. These early dyking companies were characterized by a
lack of knowledge of how to dyke, a preoccupation with profit over quality, and in time a
history marked by dyke failures. In 1873 the first British Columbia parliament passed the 68
Drainage, Dyking and Irrigation Act, which regulated the manner in which dykes were financed in the Fraser Valley. In 1878 the first dyking district was formed in Matsqui; the formation of other districts soon followed. These districts quickly ran into financial problems, and the Provincial government was forced to refinance them on more than one occasion.
The region's dykes were soon put to a test as in 1894 the largest flood in recorded history struck the Lower Fraser River (Table 4). This flood exposed the shoddy construction which had prevailed over the preceding 30 years, and much of the lower
Fraser Valley's dyke system was destroyed.
Dyke reconstruction following the flood was financed by the Provincial government, but the lack of financial resources precluded the proper rehabilitation of the dykes. A typical dyke of this period was made from material removed from the immediate landward side of the dyke which severely compromised the dyke's structural integrity. In addition, most of the dykes lacked access roads on their crest, which hindered maintenance and emergency repairs. Following their reconstruction most dykes were quickly overrun with vegetation and honeycombed with animal burrows.
Over the first half of the 20th century, efforts were made to maintain the dykes, but the lack of finances continued to be a hindrance. From 1900 to 1948 the dyking districts suffered from so many financial difficulties that in 1947 a Royal Commission was assigned to conduct an inquiry into the financial problems of BC's dyke system. The most ambitious water management program during this period was carried out in the Sumas dyking district. The concept of draining Sumas Lake had existed for forty years, and during that period various companies had been formed to reclaim that area. Despite all the early interest it was not until 1926 that the project was finally completed. That year the dyking district established dykes along the Fraser, drained Sumas Lake, and diverted the Vedder River. TABLE 4 FRASER RIVER AT MISSION RECORDED DATA ON THE SIX HIGHEST ANNUAL FRESHETS, 1894-1973 1894 1948 1950 1964 1967 1972 Peak water elevation (ft MSL) 26.0 24.98 24.44 22.96 22.97 23.56 Note: The average "bankfull" level at Mission is 18 feet
Reprinted from: Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Joint Advisory Board. (1976). Fraser River Upstream Storage Review Report. Victoria, B.C. 70
During the half century following the flood of 1894 and leading up to 1948 there had been other floods in the Lower Fraser Valley, although none had been as serious as the
1894 disaster. The absence of any serious flooding made the public less aware of the
Fraser's flooding hazard and thus unprepared for the events of 1948.
5.1.2 Channel Improvements
Whereas early dyking efforts were primarily limited to the Lower Fraser Valley, early channel improvements were undertaken along the entire stretch of the Fraser river
(Canada 1948). The motivating factor behind early improvements was the discovery of gold in the Thompson River basin in the late 1850s (Hutchison 1950). British Columbia had few roads at this point and the river was the primary form of transport, especially for those regions located in the interior. Improvements to upstream channels were done primarily to assist the early paddlewheelers that carried goldminers from the river's mouth to the fields located in the interior. For example, there are records indicating that in the mid 1800s rocks were removed from Cottonwood Canyon, north of Prince George to allow the passage of steamers (Canada 1948). Improvements at the mouth of the river were done primarily to improve the port at New Westminster. In 1880, dredging was undertaken to establish a ship channel from the Strait of Georgia to New Westminster. In
1882 snag removal began in the Lower Fraser using the snagboat "Samson I". In 1886 the first rock jetties were built at the mouth of the river to close channels breaking out from the main channel through the Sandheads. At the same time various interests requested that a study be conducted to determine whether it was feasible to obtain a deep water channel from Georgia Strait into the river. As a result of this study a series of training walls were built over the next five years to train and scour the river.
From 1894 to 1910 there were continued efforts directed towards improving bank protection and controlling the channel at the mouth of the river. Dredging was undertaken along the Lower Fraser from the river's mouth to Chilliwack, and also along stretches of 71
the South Thompson including portions of Shuswap Lake. The period 1910 to 1948 was
the most intensive period of development along the Fraser River. During this period channel improvements were being made throughout the entire basin to provide access to
those points not serviced by railroads. During this period there was a major effort to make
the port at New Westminster a major west coast deep-sea port, an effort which was
bouyed by the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 (Gresko and Howard 1986). In 1912
the North Fraser Harbour Commission was created, and to help develop and coordinate
the port the New Westminster Harbour Commission, the predecessor of the present Fraser
River Harbour Commission, was created in 1913 by an act of Parliament. Making sure
that the port remained open and the channel navigable was almost a daily chore, and one
of the major activities during this period was the construction of jetties at the mouth of the
river which were completed in 1934. The Canada Public Works Department continued its
snagging operations with Samson I and other craft. Bank protection and dredging
continued throughout the basin, but efforts were concentrated in the lower stretches of the
river.
5.1.3 Power Development
The development of power generating facilities began in the early twentieth century
(British Columbia 1954). The primary power producer during this period was the British
Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited, later called B.C. Electric Company, which
was a forerunner of the present day BC Hydro. Initially there were other smaller firms,
such as the Vancouver Power Company, but they all were eventually incorporated into BC
Electric Railway.
The history of hydroelectric power development in the Fraser Basin began in 1903 with
the construction of the Coquitlam-Buntzen Power development on Coquitlam Lake. This
development consists of a dam at the mouth of Coquitlam lake with a diversion tunnel to
the Powerhouse on Buntzen lake. Other hydroelectric developments include: the Stave 72
Falls Power Development of 1912, the Alouette Power Development of 1928, and the
Ruskin development of 1930. All these projects are located on tributaries of the Fraser
River in the lower Fraser Valley. In addition, in 1929 a dam was built at Shuswap Falls in the North Okanagan to supply power to the Okanagan Valley. These projects provided power for the growing needs of the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia.
5.2 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT: 1948-PRESENT
There have been many water resource plans developed over the past forty years
(Figure 10). These plans have been developed by the Provincial Ministry of Environment and through cooperative agreements between the federal and provincial governments.
Planning has been undertaken for a variety of reasons, including concerns over pollution in the Thompson River, conflicts over water supply in the Nicola Basin, and power generation in the Nechako Basin. The majority of the planning has been done in regions such as the
Lower Mainland and the Thompson River Basin where development has had the greatest impact on the water resources (Figure 11).
5.2.1 Flood Management
It was in June of 1948 that disaster struck the Lower Fraser Valley as the Fraser
River overran its banks, reaching its second highest crest at Mission in recorded history
(Table 4). As Bruce Hutchison (1950) describes it:
"Modern Canada has never seen a flood like this. Quietly, slowly, inexorably, the brown water rose beside the farmland below the canyon and the delta at the river's mouth. Before it earth dykes crumbled and dissolved like sugar, or suddenly, under pressure from below, exploded, tossing trees, stumps and barns into the air. A cargo of uprooted trees and flotsam from the interior poured into the sea, and with it poured the carcasses of milk cows, horses, pigs and sheep to be washed up on the rocks of the Gulf Islands, and even the beaches around Victoria. The transcontinental grades were submerged. Except by air, Vancouver was isolated from the rest of Canada."
All told, 16,000 people were evacuated, 2000 homes were damaged, 55,000 acres were inundated, and both rail lines were cut, effectively isolating the Lower Mainland from the FIGURE 10 A CHRONOLOGY OF WATER RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN
1948 SEVERE FLOODING IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY FRASER VALLEY DYKING BOARD (1948-1950) DOMINION-PROVINCIAL BOARD, FRASER RIVER BASIN (1948- 1954) 1950 FRASER RIVER BOARD ESTABLISHED (1955) FRASER RIVER BOARD'S INTERIM REPORT (1956) FRASER RIVER BOARD'S PRELIMINARY REPORT (1958) FRASER RIVER BOARD RE-ESTABLISHED (1959) I960 FRASER RIVER BOARD'S FINAL REPORT (1963) CANADA-BRITISH COLUMBIA COMMITTEE (1966) FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FLOOD CONTROL AGREEMENT SIGNED (1968) 1970 FRASER RIVER JOINT ADVISORY BOARD'S UPSTREAM STORAGE REPORT (1976) COQUITLAM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY (1974-1978) FRASER RIVER ESTUARY STUDY (1977-1984) 1980 • FRASER RIVER JOINT ADVISORY BOARD/DYKING PROGRAM (1968-1994) THOMPSON RIVER BASIN PREPLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT (1981) NICOLA BASIN STRATEGIC PLAN (1983) FRASER DELTA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (1985) THOMPSON-BONAPARTE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (1986) SHUSWAP LAKE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (1987) CHIMNEY, FELKER AND BRUNSON LAKES MANAGEMENT PLAN (1987) NORRISH CREEK INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (1988) NECHAKO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN (1989) 74
BASIN-WIDE PLANS DOMINION-PROVINCIAL BOARD FRASER RIVER BOARD FRASER RIVER JOINT ADVISORY BOARD
NECHAKO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
TUOMPSOM-EONAPARTE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT THOMPSON RIVER BASIN PREPLAN CHIMNEY, FELKER AND BRUNSON LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN COQUITLAM RIVER WATER .MANAGEMENT STUDY SHUSWAP LAKE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FRASER RIVER ESTUARY STUDY NICOLA BASIN STRATEGIC PLAN NORRISH CREEK INTEGRATED FRASER DELTA STRATEGIC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FIGURE 11 - LOCATION OF PLANNING IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN 75 rest of Canada for several weeks (Sewell 1965). The total public expenditure to repair the damage done by that flood is estimated to be $20,000,000, in 1948 dollars, though actual losses might have been several times as great. The impact and subsequent repercussions of the 1948 flood continue to be felt even today (Canada-British Columbia 1976). Floods of greater magnitude than those of 1948 or 1894 can and will occur in the Fraser River System, although the specific year or years of their occurrence cannot be predicted. History seems to bear this out as an investigation has shown that damaging floods struck the Lower Fraser Valley every four years between 1858 and 1950 (Canada-British Columbia 1958). Since 1948 there have been four floods that have reached levels near that of the 1948 flood (Table 4)(Sewell 1977). Flooding in the Lower Fraser Valley is caused primarily by a large freshet in June and July as the previous winter's snowpack melts (Sloan 1974). The peak of the freshet is determined by the size and elevation of the snow pack, the warmth and duration of air temperatures and to some extent by the amount of rainfall during the freshet period. Flooding in the Lower Fraser Valley may also be caused by combinations of high ocean tides and storms which attack the sea dykes surrounding portions of Lulu Island, Sea Island and other areas. To protect areas adjacent to the Georgia Strait and the Fraser River from flooding the Federal and Provincial Governments have spent a tremendous amount of effort and money. The initial planning response, following the flood, was the 1948 Fraser Valley Dyking Board Act (Sewell 1965). This Act gave the province the sanction to establish a board to strengthen, repair, and reconstruct dykes along the Fraser. The Federal government paid 75% of the costs and the Provincial government paid the remaining portion (Canada- British Columbia 1976). The Dyking Board spent $11.4 million rehabilitating 163 miles of dykes. They filled the burrow pits and constructed roads on most, but not all the dykes. The board was disbanded in 1950, their task complete. Public confidence in their work was strengthened when, in 1950, the river crested at a point just short of the 1948 level, 76 and the dykes held the river back (Table 4). To ensure the future integrity of the dyking system, the Dykes Maintenance Act was passed which gave the Dyking Commissioner power to inspect any dyke and request repairs be made. In addition, the commissioner was given wide enforcement powers (Sewell 1965). In addition to the Fraser Valley Dyking Board, another Board established as a reaction to the 1948 flood was the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (Parker 1968). The flood had shown the vulnerability of development on the floodplain, and the objective of the Regional Planning Board was to plan the wise use of land within the Lower Mainland region. The Board's final plan was adopted in 1966 with the principle considerations being the locations of new homes and industry, the conservation of agricultural land and reservation of parkland. The flood of 1948 emphasized the inherent weaknesses in past approaches to flood problems (Sewell 1977). The initial reaction, to simply reconstruct the dykes, was a short- term solution to the long-term problem. Following the flood there was a call for an enlightened approach to water management in which floods would be viewed as one aspect of water management, and the Lower Fraser Valley as a part of a larger entity, the Fraser River basin. Prior to the 1948 flood there had been some discussion of setting up a board which would study the entire Fraser basin and all of its resources (Canada-British Columbia 1963). This concept was reworked and in late 1948 the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin was established. The basic purpose behind the Dominion- Provincial Board was to study and report on the water resources and water requirements of the Fraser River Basin (Canada-British Columbia 1952). Primary attention was to be paid to floods, fisheries, power, recreation, and water supply. This was the first multiple purpose examination of the Fraser River system, and probably one of the first in Canada (Sewell 1965). It was thought that a multiple purpose approach could solve the flood problems in the Lower Fraser as well as provide power. It was also believed that such development would facilitate the expansion of irrigation, navigation, and recreation throughout the basin. As the study progressed however, it 77 became apparent that the effectiveness of the board was being hampered by a number of factors such as an engineering bias, an assumed public preference for recreation and fisheries over other uses, and the lack of qualified personnel experienced in comprehensive planning (Sewell 1977). The Board was also hampered in its collection of the essential basic data, and it took several years of intensive work by several agencies to remedy the problem. By 1954 the Board had made little progress beyond the information collection stage and as public memory of the flood faded the Dominion-Provincial Board was disbanded and replaced in 1955 by the Fraser River Board (FRB) (Canada-British Columbia 1956). The Fraser River Board was given the same planning unit to work with, the Fraser River Basin, as the Dominion-Provincial Board, but the scope of the investigation was narrowed to include only flood control and hydroelectric power (Sewell 1965). Other uses of the river were to be considered only when the effects of proposed projects on that particular use might be substantial. The Fraser River Board was governed even more by the engineering bias towards structural solutions and technical feasibility, rather than overall economic efficiency, than the Dominion-Provincial Board. The FRB issued three reports between its establishment and 1963. The first of these reports, issued in 1956, was an Interim Report (Canada-British Columbia 1956). This report was limited to a discussion of the various measures that might be taken to control flooding in the Lower Fraser Valley. It also noted what limitations to flood control might be placed by other resource interests or by economic feasibility. The deterioration of the Lower Fraser Valley dykes was noted, and the Board recommended that they be restored to meet the criteria set by the Fraser Valley Dyking Board. The report also recommended that no further flood control action be taken until the effect of multiple purpose storage projects on flood control could be studied. The Preliminary Report of 1958 was more comprehensive than the interim report and offered several multiple purpose solutions (Canada-British Columbia 1958). The Board 78 decided that the development of the entire basin would conflict with fisheries preservation. So the Board suggested that the river be partially developed, based on projects that would provide flood control, interfere as little as possible with the fisheries, and be economically viable in the production of hydroelectric power. The Board recommended System A, one of three partial development plans it had developed, for further investigation (Figure 12). It was also recommended that further improvements be made to the dykes of the Lower Fraser Valley before they failed again. In 1959 the Fraser River Board was given new terms of reference, and directed to prepare a comprehensive report dealing with the engineering and economic feasibility of the System A plan, which was recommended in the 1958 preliminary plan (Canada-British Columbia 1963). The Final Report, issued in 1963, recommended System E, a renamed version of System A (Figure 13). The Board's recommendations also included: - that the existing dykes in the Lower Fraser Valley be improved and maintained to withstand a flood crest of 26 feet at Mission; - that appropriate arrangements be made for the operation of the existing Nechako River and Bridge River reservoirs to facilitate flood control whenever necessary, and - that the components of System E be considered as providing the minimum flood control required in conjunction with the first two recommendations. Portions of System E would also provide flood control for other riverbank communities such as Kamloops and Prince George. However, by 1963 development of the power potential of the Peace and Columbia river systems preempted development of System E, and residents of the Lower Fraser Valley were not enthusiastic about contributing to the cost of the development (Sewell 1977). In FRASER RIVER bASIN FRASER RIVtR BASIN ;Port?s« MounUin SCHEME OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER MINOR SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL RECOMMENDED OF HYDRO - ELECTRIC POWER AND BY THE ERASER RIVtR BOARD FLOOD CONTROL Div5rjip.11 to eace River .Lower McCiegor fXrand Cinvon Jjy Isaac-Lakev\ owwuVXiriboo Falls m. "2k i I xv„ vCarjboo Falls J 1 V"^> £,Huteon Like ClearwaluAare^, 4 / S leanvater-AiureV .'^i / Herap , .^Nemp'CFMk ^rc^K w» Granite Canyon^, TV , •.„„-.(" CtearvraterT j-' / V "'XT £:\ ,"'1 0 Storage provided by Existing ? \^ |1 / ( ^ ) Developments Lakes behind Dams VANI'OUVI NtW WtsTMlNaT ^,1'Mer Fasei»Val,le. Elykes f--' ^ FIGURE 12 SYSTEM A FIGURE 13 SYSTEM E Reprinted from: Sewell, W.R.D. (1965). Water Management and Floods in the Fraser River Basin. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 80 addition, the dykes of 1964 held back a potentially damaging flood and government attention was diverted to other pressing issues. In 1966, the Canada-British Columbia Committee was established to review the dyking improvement proposals outlined in the Fraser River Board's Final Report (Canada-British Columbia 1976). The committee was also to determine the requirements for the construction of sea dykes, increasing pumping and drainage capacity, and further erosion control. The committee issued a report in 1967 that outlined a $33 million plan for protection that included dyke rehabilitation and an upstream storage investigation. On the basis of the Canada-British Columbia Committee report, the two senior governments agreed to participate in the implementation of flood control works in the Lower Fraser Valley, and a review of the System E proposal. This program was authorized in the 1968 "Agreement Covering a Plan for Flood Control in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia". The Canada-British Columbia Fraser River Joint Advisory Board (FRJAB) was created under this Agreement. Its objective was to develop an integrated plan for further flood protection, utilization and control of the water resources of the Fraser River basin through the use of dykes, storage reservoirs and diversions. In 1976 the Joint Advisory Board completed its review of the System E plan, evaluating each projects' benefits and costs both singularly and in combination with other projects. The board also paid special attention to the environmental impacts on local or regional resources which could be expected from each project. The only structural project recommended by the Joint Advisory Board was the McGregor Diversion. All the other developments found within the System E plan were determined to have greater costs than benefits. The environmental impacts of the McGregor Diversion were studied more closely in 1978, and it was determined that construction of the diversion may be environmentally hazardous and the diversion has never been constructed. The McGregor Diversion is still considered a 81 potential power development site by BC Hydro, although more studies will need to be completed (Pers. Comm. S. Huber 1989). Following the completion of the Upstream Storage Study, the Joint Advisory Board has been concentrating on the construction of dykes along the lower Fraser river. The original 1968 Agreement has been amended five times since it was signed. These amendments have primarily dealt with how the construction is financed. The original Agreement stipulated that the local municipalities share in the cost, however this condition was eliminated in the first amendment. Subsequent amendments allocated more funding for the construction of more dykes, and the current Agreement is scheduled to expire in 1995. All three joint Federal-Provincial Boards were composed of representatives from the various ministries interested in water resource management during that period (Canada- British Columbia 1952; Canada-British Columbia 1963; Canada-British Columbia 1976). In 1952 the Dominion-Provincial Board was composed of the Provincial Deputy Ministers of Lands, Fisheries, and Public Works and federal representatives from the Departments of Public Works, Fisheries and Agriculture. The Fraser River Board was similarly composed. Together the two boards spent $1.4 million dollars over fourteen years (Sewell 1965). The yearly financial records indicate that the Dominion-Provincial Board spent roughly half of this amount (Canada-British Columbia 1951-54) The Fraser River Joint Advisory Board is composed of three federal members and three provincial members coming from water management agencies. The FRJAB was originally allocated $36 million to undertake the Upstream Storage Study and construct the dykes. This figure has been increased five times and at present is well over $120 million. The current federal-provincial flood prevention program is called the Flood Damage Reduction Program, and was initiated in 1975 (Canada 1982). The 1968 Federal- Provincial agreement is included as one part of this program, but the Flood Damage Reduction program also includes a flood mapping program. Flood mapping did not begin until 1988 on a Provincial level, although an earlier mapping program had been partially 82 instituted in 1972 (Sewell 1977). This earlier effort was the result of the 1972 flood in the Oak Hills area of Kamloops. The goal of both programs is to identify the 200 year flood level; the municipalities are then advised of the areas within that floodplain. The next step will be to zone areas that fall within the floodplain to discourage further development. Floodplain management plans are also being developed by local governments with the assistance of the Ministry of the Environment. Each local management plan is a combination of floodplain management by-laws and other information regarding how to minimize flood damage. The adoption of a management plan gives local governments the authority to manage development on the floodplain. A prototype plan has been developed for Harrison Hot Springs, and planning is underway in Chilliwack, Abbotsford, and Richmond. 5.2.2 Power Development and Diversions Development of the Fraser River basin's immense hydroelectric potential continued after the flood of 1948. The B.C. Electric Company built two projects on tributaries along the middle stretch of the Fraser (Pers. Comm. S. Huber 1989). The Bridge River development was begun in 1927, and after a series of delays the first phase came on line in 1948. The second phase was eventually completed in 1960. The dam at Wahleach Lake was first proposed in 1910, and was brought on line in 1953. The Columbia-Fraser Diversion Study was instigated in 1955 after an earlier study indicated that such a diversion was worthy of further examination (BC Engineering 1956). The study examined the possibility of diverting water from the Columbia River through Eagle Pass to the Eagle River and eventually the Fraser. The study also identified ten potential dam sites along the Thompson and Fraser rivers that could take advantage of increased flow from a diversion. The production of power was also the main focus of development in the Nechako River System west of Prince George. Interest in developing the power potential of the Nechako 83 River system can be traced back to the 1920s when the idea of redirecting the river's flow from east to west was first conceived; however, because of the distances involved and the potential cost of development only an energy intensive industry located on site could make the project feasible (Paget and Clay 1961). At the same time the Aluminum Company of Canada (Alcan) expressed interest in developing the Chilko River for its power potential. This proposal met with opposition over the possible effects of such a development on the river's fishery, and in 1941 Alcan was invited to develop the Nechako river site as an alternative to the Chilko. The increasing demand for aluminum and the support of the government made the project very appealing, but the advent of World War II temporarily postponed the development. Following the war, Provincial legislation was enacted in support of Alcan's development of the Nechako river, and in 1950 a unique Agreement to develop the Nechako was signed by the Province and Alcan. In the Agreement the Province granted Alcan a water licence o and a permit to occupy crown land. The licence allows Alcan to store 43.2 km of water o and to divert 269 m /s from the Nechako River at the Kenny Dam. However, there were no conditions set in the agreement which would provide for the release of water for the maintenance of the fishery. The project came on line in 1957 and today the complex consists of Kenny Dam, a 16 km tunnel to transport water west, and a spillway used to regulate water levels (Gomez-Amaral and Day 1987). In 1979 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sought an injunction which would force Alcan to release sufficient water for the protection of Nechako River salmon (British Columbia 1989). A temporary injunction was granted in 1980, and a permanent solution was sought by Alcan through the BC Supreme Court in 1985 with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Province as co-defendants. This case was resolved out of court in 1987 when all parties signed a Settlement Agreement. However this Agreement was not supported by all as it appeared to have been conducted in private, with little public input (Gomez-Amaral and Day 1987). The fishermen's union and Rivers Defence Coalition were two of the groups denouncing the agreement and calling for a more open decision making process. Prior to signing the Settlement Agreement Alcan had filed a proposal to expand their Kemano project by increasing the diversion of water from the Nechako reservoir. In 1984, with Alcan's proposal and twelve additional water license applications requiring a response, the Ministry of Environment decided to prepare the Nechako River Water Management Plan. The goal of this water management plan was to summarize the requirements of the water users, and to develop a strategy to guide water management decisions in the Nechako watershed. 5.2.3 Water Resources Planning and Management in the Lower Fraser Valley Water resource planning and management in the Fraser River Basin has been precipitated by a variety of issues in addition to flood control and power production. These issues include: water allocation, development, quality degradation and Fisheries. In 1974 the District of Coquitlam and the Municipality of Port Coquitlam became concerned about flood protection and the protection of fisheries in the Coquitlam river (British Columbia 1978). There had been three major floods since 1921, and with the increase in development in the floodplain there were concerns that a future flood might be disastrous. Concurrently there were concerns over how the fisheries were being affected by gravel extraction along the upper stretches of the river, and how the spawning beds could be protected. In 1974 the British Columbia Department of Environment undertook a management study with the objective of assessing the value of the Coquitlam river for uses other than power generation and water supply, and to determine whether those other uses could be accommodated without depreciating the rights of existing users. In this case other uses were taken to mean flood control, fisheries, and outdoor recreation. This study is currently being used by the Flood Damage Reduction Program in their dyking program along the Coquitlam River. 85 Water resource planning in the Fraser Estuary has its roots in concerns over coordinating future development and protecting the environment, specifically proposals to expand Vancouver International Airport in the early 1970's (Dorcey 1981). During the same period there were concerns over how effluent from the new Annacis Island Sewage Treatment Plant would be treated. These concerns over multiple impacts on the estuary led to a Federal-Provincial Agreement, under the auspices of the Canada Water Act, to establish the Fraser River Estuary Study in 1977. The purpose of the study was to develop a management plan which would recognize the importance of both development of the areas adjacent to the estuary and the environment of the estuary itself (Canada 1984). The first phase of the study proposed a perceptive and innovative response to the need for management in the Estuary (Dorcey 1986). It recommended a three tier management approach comprised of a constituency, a policy group, and an Estuary Council which would be coordinated by a an Estuary Secretariat. This multi-tier approach would provide for accountable political responsibility and sectoral integration. Following the completion of Phase I of the estuary study the Federal and Provincial governments signed an agreement calling for a Phase II. The major innovations found in the Phase I recommendations were not followed up in Phase II. Instead the Study group was instructed to develop and expand the Phase I recommendations. The Phase II final report, issued in 1982, emphasized a "linked management system" approach to management in the estuary. The recommendations offered three alternatives, but ultimately it was concluded that a hybrid of the three was the best alternative. In contrast to the recommendations found in Phase I, a strong political involvement in the management process was not emphasized. Because Phase II did not clearly outline an implementation program, a Federal- Provincial Review Committee was formed to get public comment on the proposal and to devise an implementation strategy. In 1984 the Review Committee released a revised proposal which recommended a management committee comprised of a five- member 86 Executive and twenty-seven members at large. This management structure would be supported by a two-member secretariat. This new implementation strategy was formalized in October of 1985 when the federal-provincial agreement, setting up the Fraser River Estuary Management Plan (FREMP), was signed (Kennett and McPhee 1988). The goal of FREMP is to provide the means for accommodating a growing population and economy while maintaining the quality and productivity of the Fraser Estuary. Involved in FREMP are both senior governments, the Fraser River Harbour Commission, the North Fraser Harbour Commission, and various interest groups. FREMP is currently in its fourth year and has set up a project referral process and established several Activity Program Work Groups to address priority issues, such as habitat management, log management, waste management, and recreation. In addition, FREMP has been working with the municipalities located within the estuary in designating the river's foreshore for particular activities. The original waste management issue, which was one of the original concerns in the estuary, has now been addressed by the Greater Vancouver Regional District in its Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) (Greater Vancouver Regional District 1989). The LWMP is the latest step in updating the district's sewerage master plans. Its purpose is to examine how well existing sewerage facilities are handling current flows and will handle future flows. The plan also attempts to find the most environmentally acceptable and cost- effective ways to dispose of the regional district's liquid waste. The plan has been submitted to the Provincial Minister of Environment and the Regional District is waiting for his response. Other responses to the Fraser River Estuary Study's recommendations came from the Provincial Ministry of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1985 the Ministry of Environment completed the Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Plan. This plan examines water quality and quantity, the fishery, and air quality in the delta region (British Columbia 1985). In 1988 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 87 and the North Fraser Harbour Commission released the North Fraser Harbour Environmental Management Plan (Canada 1988). This plan is meant to be an integral part of the FREMP implementation strategy by establishing a shoreline classification system, developing a more detailed project assessment and review process, creating a habitat compensation bank, and establishing a cooperative management program. Presently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working on a similar agreement with the Fraser Harbour Commission. The estuary has also been the site of several controversial projects, the first of which was the Fraser River Ship Channel (Canada 1984). This was a project first proposed in 1972 by the Fraser River Harbour Commission. The purpose behind the project was to support increased port development in the Surrey-New Westminster area by increasing the depth of the channel to forty feet using training structures. The original plan went through an EARP, but was found to be infeasible after a Cost-Benefit Analysis was completed. A redesigned project is currently on hold. Two other projects have also undergone EARPs in the Estuary. The first occurred in 1977 when the Roberts Bank Superport wanted to expand to increase its loading capacity (Canada 1979). The EARP panel found that the damage that would be incurred by such an expansion would be too great and recommended that a smaller expansion be undertaken. Further studies resulted in a compromise between the original project and the project recommended by the EARP panel, and the expansion was undertaken. The other panel review concerned the location of a jet fuel barge off Sea Island that would serve the airport. This panel's findings were released in May of 1989 and the Panel found that the Jet Fuel Barge posed a hazard to the estuary and recommended that it not be sited at Sea Island (Pers. Comm P. Scott 1989). The first Integrated Watershed plan in the Fraser Basin was done in the Norrish Creek Watershed, east of Vancouver (British Columbia 1988). The Norrish Creek watershed supplies water to the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District. The watershed at this time is 88 being logged by Canadian Forest Products. Concerns over the effect of logging on water quality led the Ministries of Environment and Forests to draw up the Watershed plan. The planning process was begun in 1986 and the plan itself was released in 1988. The Norrish Creek Planning team recently held its first follow-up meeting to determine what actions had been taken and what areas should be made future priorities. Two other watersheds found within the Fraser basin have undergone Integrated Watershed Management planning - Hydraulic and Clinton Creeks - and the plans will be released in 1989. 5.2.4 Water Resources Planning and Management in the Interior The Thompson River Basin, or some portion of it, has been the subject of a number of studies and four major planning exercises (Canada 1981). There were two major studies undertaken in the mid to late 1970s. The first was the Report of the Federal-Provincial Thompson River Task Force which reported on water quality in 1976. The second was the City of Kamloops' Wastewater Management Study of 1979 in which the city examined methods of reducing nutrient discharges from the city's sewage treatment plant. It was while the Federal-Provincial Task Force was still meeting that there was growing pressure from various interest groups on the Provincial government to conduct a complete river basin study for the Thompson River basin. It was proposed that this study examine the water and land resources of the entire basin and develop a plan for water management. In response to this pressure and further concerns over water quality, the Federal and Provincial governments signed an agreement committing them to a preplanning exercise in the Thompson Basin in 1979. This agreement was signed under the auspices of the Canada Water Act of 1970. The objectives of the Thompson River Basin Preplanning Task Force were to describe water resources, quality and quantity, and the emerging opportunities and problems relating to management of the water resource. 89 The study was also to make recommendations on actions that could be taken immediately, and also to design the terms of reference for a possible future management study. In 1982 the government of British Columbia reassessed its water planning and management strategy and chose to adopt a strategic approach to future planning processes (O'Riordan 1983). The initial strategic planning process in the Fraser River Basin was completed in the Nicola Basin, a sub-basin unit of the Thompson River Basin. Hydrological studies in the Nicola Basin had been completed in the late 1960s with special reference given to net inflow into Nicola Lake and its use for irrigation and other purposes (British Columbia 1967). The strategic planning process was started in 1982, and completed the following year (British Columbia 1983). The major water issue in the Nicola region involved the allocation of water between consumptive and nonconsumptive users; mainly between irrigation demands and the need to maintain instream flows to support the fisheries. In the dry years there were conflicts over the amount of water withdrawn from streams, and planning was undertaken to design a management strategy that would successfully resolve these conflicts. In 1983, in follow-up to the Preplanning exercise completed in 1981, the BC Ministry of Environment instituted a strategic planning process in the Thompson-Bonaparte Region (British Columbia 1986). The focus on the Thompson-Bonaparte sub-regional planning unit was due to an anticipated increase in regional population, and its associated impacts on the environment. In addition, the region was faced with several major development proposals, such as the Hat Creek development and CN's twin tracking proposal, both of which would have an impact on the region's resource base. The Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan used the findings outlined in the Preplanning study, and was intended to develop a set of objectives and strategies that would ensure that the best environmental recommendations are implemented. In addition to the Nicola and Thompson-Bonaparte Strategic Plans, one other major planning exercise was undertaken in the Thompson River Basin (British Columbia 1987). 90 In 1985 the Regional District of Columbia Shuswap undertook the development of a management plan for Shuswap Lake. The major emphasis of this plan was to protect and enhance the quality of the water resource to ensure that the lake remained a recreational and tourism resource. This plan was initiated when development along the lake shore began to encroach heavily on the alluvial fans, and when it was perceived that water quality within the lake was being threatened. However, because the nature and scope of the Regional District's proposed management plan fell within the mandate of the BC Ministry of Environment, the Ministry initiated the development of a Strategic Environmental Management Plan. The common force behind these strategic planning efforts seems to be concern over water allocation, and increasing development and the subsequent effects on both water quality and quantity. The Ministry of Environment hoped that these plans would provide resource managers with direction and guidance in the allocation and management of environmental resources, assist the Ministry of Environment in achieving its management objectives, and ensure that the best environmental recommendations are implemented (British Columbia 1985). In addition to the strategic and preplanning exercises, the Thompson River Basin has been the focus of two Environmental Assessment and Review Processes (EARPs) (Canada 1985). In 1983, an Environmental Assessment Panel was appointed to conduct a public review of the environmental and related socio-economic effects of CN's twin tracking program within the Fraser-Thompson Corridor. The panel's mandate was to review CN Rail's twin tracking program and examine the adequacy of its plans to minimize environmental and social impacts within the corridor. At the same time, but as part of a separate review, the panel was requested to review the environmental implications of future transportation development within the Fraser-Thompson corridor. The Panel approved the twin tracking project, while making suggestions for improving the existing design and approvals process which was considered inadequate in dealing with 91 all the environmental issues, particularly Indian fisheries and heritage issue, associated with the program. The Panel also issued recommendations on a variety of other subjects including vibrations, noise, toxic spills, and wildlife. The most important recommendation coming out of the separate Fraser-Thompson Corridor Review was the issue of an Environmental Management System that would improve coordination among resource management agencies (Canada 1986). The panel also recommended that the native fishery, heritage and land base, along with the wildlife resource, agricultural lands, and forest lands be protected. The panel noted that the information base for these resources is slight and recommends that further studies be undertaken to augment what is available. In 1987 the BC Ministry of Environment contracted with Talisman Land Resource Consultants to develop a management plan for Chimney, Felker and Brunson Lakes (Talisman Land Resource Consultants 1987). The Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lakes Management Plan was the only plan assessed that was done by a consultant. These lakes are located south of Williams Lake in the BC interior. The need for a management plan was evident because of the conflicts which were occurring between agricultural producers, who used the lakes as irrigation storage, and the riparian landowners who had an interest in maintaining lake levels for recreation. The consultant devised a management plan based on a list of recommendations that were made after a year long study. 5.3 SUMMARY The Fraser River occupies a large and diverse basin. The basin has traditionally attracted settlement because of its natural use as a transportation corridor, its abundant natural resources, and its agricultural potential. As the population has increased and cities such as Vancouver and Kamloops have grown development has encroached on the rivers' floodplains. This has dramatically increased the amount of damage done by flooding in the past and raised concerns over future floods. In the past this concern has 92 been translated into the development of flood control plans which have used dykes, upstream storage reservoirs, diversions as possible solutions. Today these structural solutions have been augmented by floodplain mapping, floodproofing, and floodplain zoning. While flooding was the primary concern of water resource planners and managers in the past, other water related issues have now intensified. This intensification has been a result of development spreading upstream into regions, such as the Thompson River basin, and intensifying in other areas, such as the Fraser River Estuary. This growth has increased the demand on the water resource and conflicts over its use have arisen. Water resource management has also been affected by the change in how society values certain uses of the water resource. Greater emphasis is now being placed on instream uses, such as fisheries and recreation, as opposed to consumptive uses such as irrigation. The basin's gradual development and changes in how society uses water have forced water resource management in the Fraser River basin to undertake planning exercises intended to address these changes. Water resource planning in the Fraser River basin has not been undertaken without direction however. Provincial policy regarding water has traditionally been driven primarily by the Water Act. In contrast to Common Law doctrine the Water Act gives rights to the water resource on a first come first served basis. The Water Act has been augmented in recent years by legislation, both federal and provincial, that regulates such things as pollution, navigation and the fisheries. In addition there have been Acts, such as the Federal Canada Water Act which actively promote water resource planning. Water resource planning in the Fraser River basin has also witnessed the introduction of innovative planning processes. Procedures such as pre-planning, strategic planning and integrated watershed management planning were all designed to meet specific needs and to make water resource planning more efficient and effective. Change in the Fraser River basin is a continuing process and water resource planning and management must continue to meet those changes. 93 CHAPTER 6 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANS This chapter presents the results obtained from the assessment of the water resource planning documents which have been prepared in the Fraser River basin. Each plan or study was assessed using only those principles that were discussed in Chapter 3 and which were accepted during the period the plan was developed. In addition, some of the principles, for example, multiple means planning or multiple objective evaluation, were not used to assess all plans, such as the Fraser River Estuary Study or the Thompson Preplan, because studies made recommendations for further studies rather than management recommendations. Treating water as an economic or marketable good was not used at all because it applies primarily to provincial policy plans and not area plans. In a few instances it was noted where the principles were applied before they were actually formally accepted by the planning mainstream. The plans were assessed on whether they used or did not use the principles. Because the assessment does not attempt to consider the quantity or quality of application of each principle their mention in the planning document was understood to mean that they had been used to some extent in the planning process. If there was no mention of the principles then it was assumed that they were not used. In some cases the principles were not applicable to the plan because they were not accepted at the time the plan was developed or it was deemed inappropriate to apply them for other reasons explained above. See Table 5 for a summary of the assessment. 94 TABLE 5 AN ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING IN THE FRASER RIVER BASIN PLAN/PRINCIPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DOM-PROV. BD Y Y N Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 SYSTEM E/FRB N Y N Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLD. CON. AGR. N Y N N Y Y N N 0 0 COQ. RIV. ST. Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N FRAS. EST. ST. N Y Y Y 0 Y 0 Y Y Y THOMP. PREPLAN N Y N Y 0 Y 0 Y N N NICOLA ST. PL. Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y FRA DELTA ENV PL N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y THOMP-BON ENV PL N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y LAKE MAN. PL N Y N N Y Y N Y N N SHUSWAP ENV PL N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y NORRISH CR IWMP Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y NECH RIV PLAN N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N 1 BASIN WIDE PLANNING 7 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION 2 MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3 LOCAL INSTITUTIONS 9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 4 INTEGRATIVE 10 REVIEW STRATEGY 5 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING 6 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING +—+ + • -- + + + |Y | j N ! : o j +—+ H + H + PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE USED NOT USED NOT APPLICABLE 95 PLAN: Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin YEAR: 1949-54 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1953). Fourth Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1952). Third Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1951). Second Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was used. The Dominion Provincial Board was established to survey and determine what developments and controls of the water and other resources of the Fraser River basin would be practicable and in the public interest. These surveys were to examine, among other things, land management, wildlife, floods, and erosion. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The Dominion Provincial Board recognized the many purposes of the water resources in the Fraser River system, such as recreation, support of the fishery, navigation, flood control, and power generation. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. The Dominion-Provincial Board did however, recognize the importance taking several different approaches to management. This was most obvious in their consideration of flood control, for which they investigated the use of upstream storage reservoirs and improved dyking. 96 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. The Board did however, consider the affect that the projects it proposed would have on the salmon fishery and recreation, in addition to the benefits of flood control. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. In the Board's terms of reference however, it was directed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each development on public or private interests, and to estimate the costs and benefits of each suggested project. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. The terms of reference however, make it clear that the Board was free to hold public workshops and to accept written submissions from the public. There is no indication in the various Annual Reports that the public was involved in the Board's activities. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. The Dominion-Provincial Board involved many different agencies from both the Provincial and federal levels of government. However, local governments were not involved in the study. The Board was authorized to make use of a variety of disciplines from a variety of different sectors. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. 97 LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Dominion-Provincial Board was a step towards forming a local management institution only in that it was a body set up to specifically examine one region. There was never any indication that the Board debated the merits of creating a local institution to manage the resources of the basin. PLAN: Fraser River Board/System E YEAR: 1955-63 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1956). Interim Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1958). Preliminary Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1963). Final Report. Victoria B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. The System E plan, developed by the Fraser River Board, was a basin wide plan, but only in the interest of developing sites for hydroelectric power generation and flood water storage. Unlike the Dominion-Provincial Board the Fraser River Board did not examine other resources found in the basin. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The FRB considered the use of reservoirs for both hydroelectric power generation and flood water storage. The Board also recognized the many uses of the water including fishery habitat, navigation, recreation and irrigation, but these were only considered in so far how they were impacted by the development of storage reservoirs. 98 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. The Fraser River Board however, examined the use of dykes and upstream storage facilities to control flooding. The Board also recommended better flood forecasting, warning programs and flood plain zoning. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. The Board however, examined the possible effects of development on the basin's fishery, recreational opportunities and flood control. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. A cost-benefit analysis was done however, on each proposed system (i.e. Systems A, B, and C). In addition, the Board made a qualitative assessment of how each project would affect the fishery. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. Unlike the Dominion-Provincial Board the Fraser River Board's terms of reference do not mention public participation. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. Both senior levels of government were involved in the board's activity. However, as in the case of the Dominion Provincial Board, there was no local government involvement. Specific departments and agencies are mentioned in the acknowledgements. The type of departments and agencies involved in the Fraser River Board's activities would seem to indicate that there was also a variety of disciplines involved. 99 IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. An implementation strategy was not suggested in the Board's fmal recommendations. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not applicable for chronological reasons. A review strategy was not suggested in the Board's final recommendations. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Fraser River Board's recommendations are centered around the development of System E. There does not appear to be any inclination towards the creation of a local institution to manage the basin's resources. PLAN: Flood Control Agreements/Fraser River Joint Advisory Board YEAR: 1968-Present BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Joint Advisory Board. (1976). Fraser River Upstream Storage Review Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia. (1968). Information Guide. Fraser River Flood Control Program. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. The Fraser River Joint Advisory Board reviewed the basin-wide System E plan, and then developed their own basin plan for the generation of hydroelectric power and storage of flood water. Other than briefly examining the effects of flood control measures on other basin activities the use and development of other natural resources within the basin was 100 not part of the Joint Advisory Board's mandate thus their interest rarely strayed from the water's edge. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The board reviewed projects that could be used for flood water storage and hydroelectric power generation. The other uses of the river were also recognized and included in the assessment process. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The board examined possible flood control measures, such as storage, dykes, floodplain zoning, diversions, and flood routing. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The objective of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board was to develop an integrated plan for further flood protection, utilization and control of the water resources of the Fraser River. Environmental factors were considered when they were impacted on by the development, and social factors were not mentioned. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. The board undertook an extensive evaluation process to assess the potential costs and benefits of each project included in the System E plan. Individual projects had their costs and benefits assessed singularly and as part of multiple combinations of projects. Environmental impacts, from both individual projects and the possible project combinations, were then examined on both a regional and local level. All the tangible ecological and environmental costs and benefits were derived and used in conjunction with the intangible costs and benefits. Originally the board attempted to quantify all the costs and benefits, but had to settle for an assessment which also included a qualitative 101 discussion of possible costs and benefits to the environment. However, no consideration was or is given to social costs and benefits. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not used. The public was not involved in the review of the System E plan. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. The Board acknowledges the participation of a number of different government departments and agencies, but fails to mention them by name. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was not applied. The the Joint Advisory Board's 1976 report on upstream storage does not supply an implementation strategy. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not applied. A review process was not mandated in the 1976 report. Further work was done in assessing the potential environmental impacts of the McGregor Diversion, but no review of the board's recommendations was carried out. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Joint Advisory Board's mandate was to review the System E plan and made its own recommendations on which parts should be constructed. There was no suggestion of a local institution to be created to manage the basin's resources. 102 PLAN: Coquitlam River Water Management Study YEAR: 1974-1978 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1978). Coquitlam River Water Management Plan. Water Investigations Branch. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was used. The Coquitlam River Water Management Study examined the Coquitlam River watershed. Within that study they examined the effects of different types of land uses on the water resource. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The value of the water resource to a variety of sectors was recognized, such as gravel removal, fisheries habitat, and recreation. The BC Hydro dam at the mouth of Coquitlam lake is used in flood control, power generation and the lake may also be used for water supply. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The flooding problem was tackled in several different ways: by using the dam to store flood waters, dyking, flood proofing and floodplain zoning. There were also a number of approaches recommended for maintaining the fishery, such as increasing the spillage over the dam, and regulating the gravel operations to control the damage they were causing to the spawning beds. 103 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was not used. There was concern over economic factors such as possible flood damage. There were also environmental concerns, such as preserving the fishery, and social concerns in promoting recreation and a constant water supply. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. This study undertook an extensive evaluation of all the possible alternative water management strategies that could possibly be employed on the Coquitlam River. This includes a Cost-Benefit Analysis of the dykes, and maintaining a minimum spillage over the dam to benefit fisheries. The study also evaluated the effects of certain landuses on the fishery, such as logging, gravel operations, urban use, flood control, and land alteration on streambanks. All river improvement projects underwent environmental impact assessment in an attempt to reduce detrimental effects. In addition to maintaining the river's fishery, all water management alternatives were priced for operating the lake for certain uses, such as power generation, and as a source of water. The plan however, failed to use the principle because it did not consider the social costs and benefits of the recommendations. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. The public was involved in the Coquitlam River Water Management Study to a limited extent, but the study does not state where or how specifically the involvement occurred. Several people attended the meetings and are mentioned in the appendix. In addition to members of the general public there was participation by several interest groups such as the Steelhead Society, and the local fishing and hunting club. 104 INTEGRATION: This principle was used. This study involved all three levels of government and ten different agencies representing a number of different sectors and disciplines. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was not used. The study suggests that an implementation committee be set up. It was thought that the committee could expedite river management and act as a referral center for agencies involved in implementing the recommendations, but nothing ever came of these suggestions. Otherwise specific agencies were given specific responsibilities to follow up on. The study also recommended that in the future a specific schedule should be put in place to help ensure that recommendations were implemented. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not used. This criterion was not met. However, there was a suggestion at the end of the plan that the implementation committee be retained following the implementation of all the recommendations, although the exact purpose was not specified. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Coquitlam River Water Management Plan investigated the possibility of instituting a Coquitlam River Water Management Authority which would have regulatory authority. This concept had been proposed earlier and the study examined it further to see if such an authority would meet its needs. However, in the final recommendations the study's participants decided to work through the existing water management system. 105 PLAN: Fraser River Estuary Study YEAR: Phase I: 1977-78; Phase II: 1979-82; Phase III: 1983-84 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase I. (1978). Key Findings and Recommendations. Victoria:Fraser River Estuary Study. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase I. (1978). Summary. Victoria:Fraser River Estuary Study. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase II. (1982). A Living River by the Door. Surrey:Fraser River Estuary Study. Harvey, Cathy (ed.). (1982). Results of Public Involvement. Surrey:Fraser River Estuary Study. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Management Program Review Committee. (1984). An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Fraser River Estuary Management Program Review Committee. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. In all three Phases the focus of the study was the area downstream from Kanaka Creek to the tidal interface and from Point Grey in the north to the International Boundary in the south. In addition, the study only considered the land and water outside of the dyke and did not have any dealings with those areas inside the dyke system. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. All three phases of the study recognized the many purposes that water resources could serve, such as navigation, waste dilution, fish habitat, recreation etc. 106 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was not applicable because of the study nature of this process. The recommendations made by the study were on how to institute a management process in the estuary rather than specific water management actions, such as constructing dams. In their recommendations however, each phase addressed a variety of issues and how they might be handled in a variety of ways in a management program. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The study specifically states that its purpose was to develop a management plan which recognized the importance of the estuary both for human activities, such as port development, and for the preservation of ecological integrity. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not applicable because of the study nature of this process. The study proposed a management scheme, rather than specific recommendations that would directly affect the water resource and could be evaluated. Phase I did do a qualitative assessment of the benefits and concerns of its Estuary policy plan. In Phase II each of the three options had their advantages and disadvantages briefly weighed before the hybrid of the three was developed. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. The public was involved in the study at different points in time and with varying amounts of intensity. In Phase I there were a limited number of workshops used to identify issues of concern. There was also some limited consultation with natives to discuss their concerns about management in the Estuary. The Study's Steering Committee formed a Public Participation Advisory Committee (PPAC), made up of interested non-governmental organizations, that was to make suggestions on how future 107 phases of the study could involve the public to a greater degree. The PPAC was also given a chance to comment on a draft plan. In Phase II the public was involved in the study to a greater degree than in Phase I. Phase II had a designated Public Involvement Officer to coordinate the participation program. In addition, there was an umbrella organization, called the Fraser River Estuary Forum, created by the study to monitor the study's progress and make suggestions on how the public could be involved more effectively. The study also used newsletters, personal interviews, the mass media, multi-media productions and workshops in an attempt to involve the public in the planning process. In the Implementation phase, Phase III there was no indication that there was any public involvement. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. Each phase of the study involved federal, provincial and local governments. Within the three levels of government there was participation among a wide variety of sectors, including Environment Canada, BC Ministry of Highways, Public Works Canada, the Environment and Land Use Secretariat, National Harbours Board etc. This wide variety of different sectors would also seem to indicate a variety of different disciplines were involved in the study's activities. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. Both Phase I and Phase II outlined an implementation strategy which was to be followed up on in Phase III. Phase I goes so far as to include a flow diagram illustrating how the study should proceed after Phase I concluded. The Phase II summary, A Living River by the Door, includes a section on implementing a Linked Management System. The objective of Phase III was to design a strategy for implementing a Fraser River Estuary Management Program. 108 REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Phase I of the Fraser River Estuary Study emphasizes the need for a "process plan", by which they meant a planning process which was capable of adapting to new findings. Their reasoning was that: a process plan could provide a framework for decision making; it would provide a regional context for assessing development; it could guide and expedite administrative decision making; and that it would provide consistency. The Implementation Strategy developed in Phase III emphasizes the need for ongoing refinement of all management activities based on an annual review. The study's major recommendation, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, is to be reviewed after five years by the Federal and Provincial governments who will decide if funding will continue. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was used. The Fraser River Estuary Management Program partially satisfies this criteria by providing a limited opportunity for local governments and population to become involved in the management program. Municipalities and Regional Disticts are on FREMP's Management Committee as members at large, and the program does offer the public a chance to become involved in the activity groups. In addition, FREMP has instituted a project referral program that insures that all those concerned with development in the Estuary are made aware of what developments are occurring. Phase I also addressed the issue of political accountability in setting up the three tier management system with ultimate decision making responsibility resting with an Estuary Council. However, this structure was abandoned in Phase II for a management system that "tuned-up" the existing estuary management structure. 109 PLAN: Thompson River Preplanning Task Force Report YEAR: 1981 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Canada-British Columbia. Thompson River Basin Pre-Planning Task Force. (1981). Preplanning Task Force Report. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. The Task Force report excluded the Nicola River watershed from the study for a reason that was not stated in the planning document. The plan did examine the effect of land use, such as irrigation or urban development, on the region's water resources. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The preplan recognized the various uses of the water resources, such as irrigation, fisheries, recreation, domestic water supply, flood control, urban development, tourism and waste dilution. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was not applicable because of the study nature of this process. The Preplanning study only made recommendations on how to design a future study and did not make any recommendations that would directly affect the water resource. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The study recognizes the importance of economic factors, such as irrigation, environmental factors such as maintaining the salmon fishery, and preventing pollution. In addition the study considered the social effects of pollution in the Thompson River. . 110 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not applicable because of the study nature of this process. Because of the nature of the study it simply made recommendations on the design of a future planning exercise and made no recommendations regarding management activities which could be evaluated. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. Public input was solicited through the newspapers and a list of contributors was provided. Local government input was also solicited, and used to determine the study's direction. Public participation was used in establishing recommendations for actions and studies, but how was not specifically stated. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. There was a great deal of involvement between governments and within governments. All three levels of government were involved including four federal ministries, and seven provincial ministries which indicates that a number of disciplines were involved. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The Thompson River Basin Preplanning Task Force made specific recommendations on what type of future studies should be done including their specific objectives and possible costs. The preplan study also made specific recommendations concerning a future planning exercise. It was recommended that the Federal and Provincial governments undertake such an exercise at an estimated cost of $2.4 million for three years. The plan would then be implemented by a Thompson River Basin Planning Committee which would be supported by a secretariat and sub-committees, which were to be determined at a later date. Ill REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not used. There was no mechanism set up in the study to ensure that the recommendations would be reviewed in the future. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Preplanning Task Force, while suggesting that a committee be set up to implement a future planning study, did not suggest that a local management institution be set up to manage the resources of the Thompson River Basin. PLAN: Nicola Basin Strategic Plan YEAR: 1983 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1983). Nicola Basin Strategic Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was used. The Nicola River sub-basin was the focus of this strategic planning process and the plan examines the effect that certain land uses, especially irrigation, have on the region's water resources. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. This plan recognizes the uses of the water resource in the Nicola Basin, the most important of which are irrigation and the fishery. Other uses include waste dilution, waterfowl habitat and wildlife support. 112 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan deals with water supply and allocation through improvements in efficiency and the construction of storage facilities. Water quality within the basin was addressed in a number of ways including upgrading the Merritt Sewage Treatment Plant, developing ambient water quality levels for priority streams, and reducing nutrient loadings to tributaries of Nicola Lake. The fishery problem was approached through increased stocking, lake aeration, habitat protection, and water level controls. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan has both economic, social, and environmental objectives which it sets out to meet. Economic development was promoted through irrigation and flood control while other objectives dealt with the fishery and water quality. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. The Nicola Strategic Plan included a preliminary Cost-Benefit Assessment on different alternatives concerning the construction of the dam at the mouth of Nicola Lake. The plan examines the costs and benefits to agriculture and the fishery if the Nicola Lake dam was: simply repaired, repaired and supplemented by storage at Douglas Lake, or completely replaced. The plan also documents the costs and benefits to agriculture and the fishery if the flow of the Coldwater River was designated to instream flows or to agriculture. The plan however, fails to address the possible and social implications of its recommendations. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. The public participation process itself was guided by a strategy that also included the public in its formulation. There were public meetings held within the basin to give the public a chance to respond to the plan. Public participation was solicited through news 113 releases, correspondence, information depots and the meetings. Public response to the plan is found in the plan. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. The Ministry of Environment gave many other resource- oriented ministries, represented on the Thompson-Okanagan Regional Resource Management Committee, a chance to respond to the plan. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. There was an implementation strategy included in the plan which dictates agency responsibilities and probable costs. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Strategic plans are intended to be reviewed every five years. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was used. The plan concludes that institutional arrangements for Financing, building, and operating additional storage reservoirs to support the fishery and irrigation water requirements are inadequate. The plan goes on to suggest that new procedures need to be developed to include the regional districts and the ranchers, who benefit from such storage works, in the financing and operating of new storage works. It suggests that this could be accomplished if the regional district took responsibility or if the Ministry of Environment retained responsibility, but involved the local populace to a greater extent. In either case it was suggested that a local water management committee be set up to advise water managers on issues. 114 PLAN: Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan YEAR: 1985 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1985). Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. This strategic plan was focused on the Fraser Valley between Hope and the Georgia Strait and between the north bank of the river and the international boundary, only a small portion of the Fraser River basin. In addition, the plan fails to address the integration of land and water management, the other criterion for implementing basin-wide planning. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan recognizes the many uses of the water resource such as fishery habitat, navigation, agricultural irrigation, recreation, and waste dilution. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The use of a multiple means approach was most evident in the approach taken to flood control. Here the plan discusses the possibility of floodproofing and floodplain zoning. Water quality was addressed through the proposed upgrading of sewage treatment plants, waste management plans, regulations, monitoring and permitting. Habitat protection, regulation, fish culture and public information are approaches to protecting the fisheries. The issue of water allocation was still supply oriented. 115 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan has as its objectives the productive use of the resources in the area for both economic and environmental reasons. However, specific social considerations were not explicitly laid out. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. There is no indication that any alternative recommendations or management strategies were considered outside of fisheries, and none of the final recommendations are evaluated. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not used. There was no public participation in this planning process. INTEGRATION: This principle was not used. This plan was done within the Ministry of Environment with only limited consultation of other ministries. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The plan outlines activities to be carried out, who was going to carry them out and when they will be carried out. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Strategic plans are intended to be reviewed every five years. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. This plan does not recommend or suggest that a local resource management institution be set up to manage the region's resources. 116 PLAN: Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan YEAR: 1986 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1986). Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. This plan excludes large portions of the Thompson River basin including the Nicola River watershed and the upper stretches of the North and South Thompson Rivers for some undocumented reason. The plan fails to address the integration of land and water management which is the other criterion for using the principle of basin-wide planning. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan recognizes that there are many uses of the river such as instream flow for fisheries, irrigation water, industrial use and waste dilution. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan discusses methods of improving the efficiency of water allocation and use, as well as increasing storage capacity. In addition, measures to increase the wild stock of fish are meshed with suggestions of stocking the region's water bodies to increase the stock of fish available. Water quality was addressed through upgrading the region's sewage treatment plants and monitoring agricultural runoff. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan's objectives included social, environmental and economic considerations. 117 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. There were no alternative management strategies considered or evaluated for their economic, environmental or social benefits. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not used. The public was not involved in this planning process. INTEGRATION: This principle was not used. This plan was completed within the Ministry of Environment with only limited consultation of other ministries. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The plan sets up a definite schedule in which agency responsibilities are outlined. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Strategic plans are intended to be reviewed every five years. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The plan contains no recommendations concerning the establishment of an institution to involve the region's population in the management of the region's resources. 118 PLAN: Lake Management Plan for Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lakes YEAR: 1987 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: Talisman Land Resource Consultants. (1987). Lake Management Plan for Chimney, Felker and Brunson Lakes. Vancouver, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. This plan was concerned with that area immediately adjacent to the lakes, and there was no discussion of any other portion of the watershed. Because of the nature of the plan it did address land use surrounding the lake and how it affects water management. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. This plan considered the use of water in many ways, but most specifically for recreation and irrigation. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The consultant primarily recommended structural solutions, but also mentioned in the plan are suggestions for increasing the efficiency of irrigation and measures aimed at reducing the amount of water withdrawal. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. Economic matters concerning irrigation are balanced with recreation, and protecting and maintaining waterfowl habitat. 119 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. There was no indication in the plan that any alternative management strategies were considered and the final recommendations are not evaluated in the plan. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. The various user groups were allowed to participate at two different times, During the first session they were allowed to provide input into the actual planning phase, The second time was oriented towards critiquing the findings and recommendations. INTEGRATION: This principle was not used. .. The plan seems to have been done entirely by the private consultant with contact limited to those immediately concerned with the lakes' uses. There was no indication of which government agencies or levels of government were involved in the planning process other than the Ministry of Environment. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was not used. No strategy was set up to ensure that the plan's recommendations would be undertaken. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was not used. No review strategy was set up to ensure that the plan continues to function in the future, and that it continues to meet the needs of those using it. 1 LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The plan does not recommend that a local institution should be set up to manage the region's resources. 120 PLAN: Shuswap Lake Strategic Environmental Management Plan YEAR: 1987 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1987). Shuswap Lake Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. The Shuswap Lake area is only a part of the much larger Thompson River basin. The plan does address land use and its affects on the region's water resources, especially the effects of development on the lake's alluvial fans. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The water resources of the area are recognized as having many uses, such as recreation, fisheries, wildlife, and as an attraction for development. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. • Improvements in water quality were the subject of a multiple means approach. It was recommended that agricultural runoff, and septic tank sitings be reviewed in order to improve water quality. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan considers both economic growth, such as further lakeshore development, while promoting and enhancing environmental quality and social development. 121 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. There was no indication in the plan that alternative management strategies were considered or that the final recommendations were ever evaluated. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not used. There was no public participation in this planning process. INTEGRATION: This principle was not used. This plan was done entirely within the Ministry of Environment with limited contact with other ministries. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The plan sets up a timetable under which the objectives are supposed to be achieved. This timetable also defines who was responsible for achieving those objectives and how much it was going to cost. REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Strategic plans are intended to be reviewed every five years. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. As with the previous strategic plans there are no recommendations concerning regional institutions designed to manage the region's resources. 122 PLAN: Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan YEAR: 1988 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT: British Columbia, Ministry of Forests and Lands. (1988). Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was used. The Integrated Watershed Management Plans examine the issues being faced in a watershed and fully integrates issues involving land and water management. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan recognizes all the values associated with the water resource, especially the supply aspect and the fishery. Other than as a water resource, the watershed's values for wildlife habitat, BC Hydro transmission line right of ways, mining and forestry were noted. MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The suitability of the water supply for consumption was ensured in a number of ways, such as prohibiting access to the watershed, and in the future, subjecting waste generated within the watershed to treatment. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan recognizes the value of social, economic and environmental objectives. 123 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. There was no indication in the plan that alternative management strategies were ever considered or that the final recommendations were ever evaluated for their economic, environmental or social costs and benefits. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was used. The public was involved at two different points in the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management planning process. The initial public meeting was intended to explain the planning process and to get input on issues concerning the public. The second public involvement opportunity was to review the draft plan. The possibility of future public participation was left open. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan was a joint effort by the Ministries of Forests and Environment which act as co-lead agencies. The planning effort was directed by a planning team composed of members from the Ministries of Forests and Lands, Environment and Parks, Dewdney- Alouette Regional District, Canadian Forest Products Limited, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and BC Hydro. There was also a Consultative team composed of members from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the Ministry of Agriculture. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The plan requires that an action plan be written annually, with target dates and specific responsibilities outlined. 124 REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. The Norrish Creek Plan calls for an annual meeting of the Planning team to review the previous year's accomplishments and to set out the coming year's work plan. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The plan does not recommend that a management institution be set up to manage the watershed's resources other than the planning team which meets annually. PLAN: Nechako River Management Plan YEAR: 1989 Basis for Assessment: British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1989). Nechako Water Management Plan. Northern Region and Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. BASIN-WIDE PLANNING: This principle was not used. The Nechako River Management Plan only examines the Nechako River from below the Kenny Dam. The plan was primarily a survey of the uses of the river and how they would be affected by changes in flow regimes, and there was not a concerted effort to integrate land and water management. MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan recognizes the value of the water resource for recreation, power generation, float plane operations, livestock ranching, irrigation, groundwater use, fisheries, wildlife and waste dilution. 125 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING: This principle was used. The fisheries problem was approached in several different ways, suggesting the release of more water from the Kenny dam, altering the habitat, and opening hatcheries. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING: This principle was used. The plan deals with providing more water for Alcan's use while at the same time protecting environmental concerns, specifically those concerning fish. Waste dilution was approached by possibly upgrading the sewage treatment plants and increasing the flow of the river. The plan also examines the social issues surrounding the river's flow. MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: This principle was not used. However, the impacts of the 1987 Settlement Agreement are identified. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This principle was not used. There is no indication that the public was involved in this planning process. INTEGRATION: This principle was used. The planning process involved Alcan, and the federal and provincial governments. Each level of government was represented by a variety of sectors and disciplines. IMPLEMENTATION: This principle was used. The 1987 Settlement Agreement lists specific responsibilities to be undertaken by Alcan, the Federal government, and the Provincial government. The plan lists the responsibilities of the Provincial government. 126 REVIEW STRATEGY: This principle was used. Under the 1987 Settlement Agreement it was agreed that a three person Steering Committee be set up with representatives from the Province, the Federal government and Alcan. This Steering Committee, supported by a Technical Committee, would oversee the implementation of the Agreement, publish reports on the programs activities and effectiveness, and determine matters referred to it by the Technical Committee. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS: This principle was not used. The Nechako River Management Plan did not set up a locally based management unit. The Steering Committee is made up of government and Alcan representatives and excludes the local population in its decision making. In addition, the Steering Committee is in no way independent of the centralized administrative agencies, such as the BC Ministry of Environment. 127 CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT This analysis of water resources planning in the Fraser River basin was based primarily on data gathered in an assessment of a number of water resource plans completed within the basin over the past forty years. The data obtained from the planning documents was supplemented by information gathered in a series of limited interviews with persons involved in the planning and management of water resources within the basin. There was also a limited amount of commentary from the water resources literature, some of which pertains exclusively to water resources planning in the Fraser basin, and some of which provides insights into the criteria used in the assessment. Water resources planning in the Fraser River basin has, for the most part, adopted the guiding principles of water management as they have become accepted. However, their acceptance and use has not come without obstacles, the greatest of which has been the political context in which water resources planning has taken place in British Columbia. For example, during the early 1980s, known as the "period of restraint", a number of the principles were set aside in the face of budget cutbacks and political interference in the planning process. These obstacles, while inhibiting the implementation of several of the guiding principles, did not preclude their use entirely. The following discussion examines each principle to determine whether and when each was incorporated into water resources planning in the Fraser basin, and to some extent why it was or wasn't used in particular planning situations. 7.1 BASIN-WIDE PLANNING The Fraser River basin was the focus of early water resources planning efforts from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s. These efforts included the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin, the Fraser River Board, and the System E review undertaken 128 by the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board. Of these three studies however, only the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin was truly a basin-wide study in that it did not focus its entire effort on the water resources, but also attempted to integrate a variety of issues, including land management, recreation, wildlife, pollution, flood control and navigation, into the study. Since the conclusion of these early basin studies planning activities have been limited to small watersheds or sub-basins such as the Nicola River basin, the Norrish Creek watershed, and the Coquitlam River Water Management Study. The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan and the Coquitlam River Water Management Plan attempt to fully consider the impact land use has on water resources planning and management. The Coquitlam Study focuses primarily on the effects of gravel extraction along the river's bank on the fishery, but it also examines a wide variety of land uses which may occur along the river bank. These land uses, including urban development, flood control, land alteration, and logging, all have an effect on the fishery. The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan was perhaps the most comprehensive basin-wide plan developed in the Fraser basin. Not only does the plan focus on the watershed, thus satisfying the basin orientation portion of the principle, but it also examines all the land uses found within the watershed and relates them to the management of the water resource. Uses of the watershed which it considers include logging, which is the primary watershed activity, recreational uses, and also use by BC Hydro as a right of way for its transmission lines. The Nicola Basin Strategic Plan deals with the Nicola River basin, which is a sub-basin in the Thompson River system. However, the plan focused primarily on the effects of agricultural land use on water quantity and to some extent water quality, and little consideration was given to other land uses. The other plans developed in the Fraser basin fail to encompass an entire basin, whether it be a sub-basin or a watershed, and often fail to integrate land and water 129 management. A few of the plans do recognize the importance of considering land use when discussing water resources planning and management while focusing on a non-basin region. For example, the Shuswap Strategic Environmental Management Plan clearly identifies one of the major sources of water pollution as being the septic tanks of houses being developed on the lake's shores and the plan makes recommendations that deal with the siting of septic tanks. In addition, the plan recommends that future development be barred from the alluvial fans surrounding the lake to protect fishery habitat, and to protect recreational access to the lakeshore. Other plans consider land use in terms of agricultural use and the demands irrigation will play on the region's supply of water. The primary obstacle to basin-wide water resources planning and management today is the division of the province into planning and management units that do not follow watersheds. This failure to organize administrative boundaries around watersheds is not unusual. Brule et al. (1981), in an evaluation done on the planning and implementation programs carried out under the Canada Water Act, found that within Canada there are no basins composing a political entity or. even an administrative one other than for data collection. It was also discovered that planners found it was difficult to reorganize boundaries when the reorganization threatened community leaderships. The study went on to conclude however, that while administrative boundaries often did not match watershed boundaries, there does seem to be some "distinct benefit" in forcing local interests to take other basin users and interests into account when planning. British Columbia has been sub-divided in a number of ways over the past two decades, including the ELUC Secretariat's Resource Management Regions, the Ministry of Environment's Administrative Units, the Sub-basin or Strategic planning units. Presently one of the major obstacles to basin planning appears to be the sub-regional approach taken to water resources planning in British Columbia. Portions of the Fraser basin fall into six of the Ministry of Environment's administrative units. The basin was then further sub• divided into sixteen of the forty-one sub-regional units. While some sub-regions are made 130 up of sub-basins such as the Nicola, most are composed of portions of sub-basins such as the Shuswap-Adams, and groupings of watersheds such as the Coquitlam-Pitt River sub- region. The sub-regional orientation was originally chosen because it was thought that the sub- regions were large enough to provide a regional level of analysis, yet small enough to allow an accurate assessment of present and future supplies of and demands for natural resources (O'Riordan 1983). At the same time river basin planning was rejected for primarily two reasons: first, large river basins, such as the Fraser and Columbia, cut across several administrative boundaries and are very diverse, and secondly, it was felt that present ministry data was generally too site specific and unsuited for basin scale analysis. It was assumed that following the completion of all the sub-regional plans falling within an Administrative unit, the plans would then be integrated upwards to provide Regional water policy statements, all of which would then be used to develop a Provincial water resources policy statement. O'Riordan (1983) also suggests that the sub- regional plans would eventually be integrated upwards to provide major river basin policy. The sub-regional or strategic planning process was stymied in the early 1980s however, when budget constraints made water resources planning almost impossible and forced the further subdivision of sub-regions. Eventually only areas considered management hot-spots were subject to planning. These areas would have some immediate crisis that needed to be resolved quickly; an example of such a plan is the Shuswap Lake Strategic Environmental Management Plan. This increasingly incremental approach to water resources planning was criticized by Sewell (1981b). He states that strategic plans, even when integrated upwards to form river basin policy, will not consider external effects of development in one part of the basin on another, the primary rationale for doing basin-wide planning. He uses the example of a pulp mill built in Prince George which will meet that particular sub-region's economic development requirements, but the wastes being discharged by that same mill will 131 adversely affect the water resources in sub-regions downstream. The problems of an incremental approach are further exacerbated by the sub-division of the sub-regions into smaller planning units. What might be a constructive management approach to problems in Shuswap Lake may cause problems downstream, but instead of occurring in a different sub-region the problems may fall in the same sub-region. This incremental approach might be overcome however, if the strategic regions were composed of sub-basins or watersheds and if there was some form of coordination between each sub-basin unit within a larger basin such as the Fraser River basin. The issue of integrating water and related land resources appears to be hindered the most in British Columbia by the lack of integration among different resource ministries. This point is discussed further in the sub-section covering integration. It appears that basin-wide planning in British Columbia will be limited to operational level watershed plans such as the Norrish Creek Watershed Management Plan. Planning on a larger scale will remain an unattainable goal in the Fraser Basin as long as planning is restricted by a set of politically defined administrative boundaries, a lack of financial resources and political will. In fact, water resources planning on any scale appears to be threatened. In one interview it was suggested that few water resource plans, of any scope, will be developed in the future under the current provincial government. This prognosis comes despite the fact that the Fraser River basin appears to offer an unprecedented opportunity to implement basin-wide planning in Canada. The entire Fraser River Basin, with the exception of a small portion of Washington, falls within the Province of British Columbia. The absence of any potentially serious international or inter-provincial jurisdictional conflicts offers many benefits and opportunities to planning on the scale of the entire Fraser basin. A large river basin however, may not always be the optimum focus of a planning study. Sewell (1965) suggests that water resources planning in the Fraser basin needs to take development in the Peace and Columbia River basins into account, and in terms of 132 power planning this appears to be true. Other considerations that need to be taken into account include how well the groundwater and surface water regimes correspond, and what impact a large metropolitan region may have on the region's water resources. It may be that a group of watersheds would be the most beneficial focus of a planning study because of their joint contribution to a cities water supply system. In most cases however, basin-wide planning should be the primary focus of activities because of the benefits it offers to society. 7.2 MULTIPLE PURPOSE PLANNING Multiple purpose planning has been a part of water resources planning in the Fraser basin from the Dominion-Provincial Board to the present. During that period many of the water's recognized uses remained constant, including irrigation, fishery habitat, navigation, waste dilution, and recreation. However, new uses, such as water's role in attracting tourism, have exhibited their growing importance. What has changed most dramatically though is the demand for water for specific uses. This is true especially in the province's interior where the expansion of irrigation and periods of extended drought have led to the full allocation of various streams for agricultural purposes. This has led to a series of conflicts, especially between those supporting the agricultural sector and those advocating the maintenance of instream flows for fisheries. Other uses of the Fraser River system which may come under closer scrutiny in the future include its development for power generation. As the population and economy of British Columbia continues to grow there will be a corresponding need for greater power generation capacity. Already rivers such as the Liard and Stikine have been targeted for development, and more consideration is bound to be given to the Fraser system as these other river systems become fully allocated. For example the potential of the McGregor diversion may come under more investigation. 133 This growing demand for water also has its roots in the changes in societal values. Prior to 1970, water resources development tended to be private, consumptive and based on narrow economies. Today, value is increasingly being placed on instream uses, which are generally public, non- consumptive, and non-commodity resources (Hannah 1987). With the amount of society's disposable income and leisure time increasing, there are greater demands being placed on the water resource for instream uses, such as recreation. This change in society's value structure means that there will be growing conflict between continued withdrawal and instream management of the water resource. This conflict will be aggravated if management fails to perceive when and where change will occur. Society's growing concern over the state of the environment has also influenced water use. This concern has led to society placing increasingly higher values on factors such as water quality, and any use of the river which will compromise these factors is questioned closely. One group's concerns which seem not to have been addressed sufficiently in any of the plans are the aboriginal people. Their dependence on salmon runs is unmatched by most of society. In addition to their dependence on the salmon, aboriginal people have other uses of related land resources which were recognized in the EARPs conducted regarding CN's Twin Tracking proposal. In Phase I of the Fraser River Estuary Study there was contact made with the Indian bands residing in the estuary, and these bands are now members of the Management Committee of FREMP. 7.3 REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS In his study of the TVA, Selznick (1984) identified three special requirements that differentiate institutional decentralization from simply deconcentration. These three requirements are: 1) The responsible agency in the area of operation is permitted the freedom to make significant decisions on its own. This implies that the agency is independent of any centralized administrative agency. It also assumes that field officers have the 134 power to make decisions on the spot, and to adapt general policies to local conditions. Accountability for the decisions which are made is also a part of this responsibility. 2) There must be active participation by the region's population in the management activities. 3) The decentralized agency is given a key role in coordinating the activities of local, state or provincial, and federal programs in the area of operation; and a regional development agency should be given primary responsibility to deal with the region's resources as a unified whole. This does not mean that the single agency will carry out all management actions, but it does mean that it will provide overall direction by setting goals and objectives and coordinating the planning and management of the region's resources. The formation of institutions to manage a region's natural resources has not been a priority in the Fraser River basin. The division of the basin into strategic units not only hinders basin-wide planning by failing to follow watershed boundaries, but also affects the formation of regional institutions by failing to follow pre-established administrative boundaries, such as regional district boundaries. There have been several options considered by planning teams that would have involved the formation of a river basin authority or a management committee. These institutions would have had some responsibility for managing local resources, including water. Both the Coquitlam River Water Management Study and the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan noted the importance of some local control over how resources were developed and conserved, and each considered an option which would have at least partially fulfilled the principle. Each however, decided when it came time to make recommendations to stay in the mainstream and to continue to rely on traditional management structures. Thus the Coquitlam River Management Authority remained merely an idea whose time was yet to come, and the same can be said of local management committees in the Nicola River basin. 135 The Fraser River Estuary Management Program meets some of the requirements laid out by Selznick (1984). The program is coordinated by a Management Committee which is divided into an Executive and Members at Large and coordinated by a small secretariat (Canada-British Columbia 1986)(Figure 15). This management structure provides an opportunity for local government to become involved in the management of the estuary. This meets one of the major objectives of FREMP, which is to provide a means for a wide variety of organizations to participate in the decision making process. In addition, FREMP is actively involved in keeping the public informed on what its activities are and what developments are occurring in the estuary (Pers. Comm. M. McPhee 1988). There are also limited opportunities for the public to become involved in the FREMP sponsored Activity Programs and in reviewing developments (Canada-British Columbia 1988). Another FREMP move towards local resource management is its Central Project Registry. The Registry works through a referral process which ensures that all agencies which might have an interest in a proposed development in the estuary are informed of the project's existence (Canada-British Columbia 1986). Despite the involvement of many interests in the management process FREMP fails to fulfill one of the major requirements of a regional management institution, that of autonomous decision making. One of the basic principles of the Management Program is that the primary responsibility for management of the estuary remains with those agencies which traditionally had management authority (Canada-British Columbia 1986). Thus, while FREMP can advise and counsel it does not have the final say over development in the estuary. Other potential problems in the FREMP structure were outlined by Dorcey (1986). The first problem was the size of the Management Committee, which would make it "difficult to exert leadership at anything but the most general level", especially because the entire Management Committee may meet only twice a year. This would place a heavy responsibility for leadership on the Executive Committee. It also imposed problems in that the members of the Executive have only limited experience and FIGURE 14 THE FREMP MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE British Columbia Minister Canada Minister of of the Environment Environment MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Executive Ministry of Environment Environment Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans North Fraser Harbour Commission Fraser River Harbour Commission Members at Large Port of Vacouver Maple Ridge Public Works Canada New Westminster Transport Canada Port Coquitlam Ministry of Agriculture and Food Pitt Meadows Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Richmond Ministry of Transportation and Highways Surrey Central Fraser Valley Regional District Vancouver Dewdney-Alouette Regional District White Rock Greater Vancouver Regional District Coquitlam Ind. Bd Burnaby Katzie Ind. Bd. Coquitlam Musqueam Ind. Bd. Delta Tsawwassen Ind.Bd Langley Matsqui Ind. Bd. Semiahmoo Ind. Bd Reprinted from: Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (1986). Newsletter. New Westminster:Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (March). 137 success in developing plans for their own sectoral activities, let alone directing a multi- sectoral planning process. Accountability in the estuary management process was addressed in the Implementation Strategy by making the Executive Committee clearly accountable to the federal Minister of the Environment and the B.C. Minister of Environment (Canada-British Columbia 1984). Dorcey (1986) however, points out that the Ministers' ability to provide political leadership is constrained by the amount of time they are able to devote to issues relating to the estuary, and also in the difficulty they would have in deciding what actions to take. For example, during the Fraser River Estuary Study the proposals which were developed were either very preliminary (Phase I) or unclear and complex (Phase II), and were contested by a variety of interested parties. Unless the Executive successfully filled the leadership role some felt it was doubtful whether political accountability would be assured. The issue of political accountability was best addressed in the recommendations of the Steering Committee following Phase I (Dorcey 1986). The Steering Committee proposed a three tier management structure made up of a "constituency", a "policy group", and an "Estuary Council" (Canada-British Columbia 1978). The constituency would be made up of all governments and non-governmental organizations that had an interest in the estuary. The policy group would be comprised of key agencies, which would be responsible for reconciling conflicts, exploring management options, and developing initiatives. The policy group would be ultimately responsible to the Estuary Council which would be a small political group bearing ultimate responsibility and accountability for formalizing policies in the estuary. The Estuary Council would be the political mechanism for making trade-offs, and would be ultimately held responsible in elections. Unfortunately these concepts were diluted in Phase II and the importance of political leadership was lost (Dorcey 1986). 138 The Fraser River Estuary Management Program and the Coquitlam River Management Authority are limited examples of how a local institution could become involved in the management of the Fraser basin's natural resources, including water. They are also examples however, of how often the execution and review of plans has continued to rely on traditional management mechanisms. 7.4 INTEGRATION Water resources planning in the Fraser River basin has long been a cooperative effort, although recently integration has fallen off. The majority of the planning processes have involved a number of different agencies representing various disciplines and levels of government. However, there have been exceptions, plans which were developed without the input of the appropriate agencies or levels of government. The earliest example of a planning process which excluded relevant parties was the Dominion-Provincial Board, which along with the Fraser River Board, excluded local government from the planning process. Sewell (1965) comments that this failure to include local municipalities may have contributed to each board's relative ineffectiveness. Other plans which have excluded relevant parties from the planning process include the Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan, the Thompson-Bonaparte Strategic Environmental Management Plan, and the Shuswap Lake Environmental Management Plan. Each of these plans involved a number of different disciplines however, they were done almost entirely "in-house", meaning that only branches found within the Ministry of Environment were involved in the planning process. This excludes other Provincial Ministries which may have an interest in the plan, and both federal and local government. The importance of "in-house" integration should not be discounted however. One interviewee stated that to get the Water Management Branch, Waste Management Branch and Provincial Fisheries together was an achievement in itself, made difficult because each branch has its own mandate to fill. One interviewee pointed out however, that in some 139 cases cooperation between the branches was not achieved; for example, fishery's studies and management plans, completed prior to the Nicola planning process, were ignored in favour of fresh data. Integration was never intended to be one of Strategic planning's strong points (O'Riordan 1981). When Strategic Planning was adopted, one of its touted benefits was its simple administration. This simplicity was guided by a well-defined line of authority that was accepted throughout the Ministry of Environment. This allowed the plan's terms of reference to be set and carried out with less conflict than if agreements had to be made between governments and agencies. Strategic plans were meant to be used as a first step towards setting objectives, which could then be compared to other resource agencies' objectives. This comparison would determine compatibility, or to identify conflicts between objectives from the outset. Identifying objectives, while seemingly a simple process, is in actuality not a simple task. In an interview it was brought out that it was not uncommon ten years ago for a group of resource managers, brought together to discuss their agency's regional objectives, to walk away from the meeting unable to define their own agency's objectives in a particular region. It was hoped a strategic planning process would assist each agency in defining its objectives. So while initially very sectoral the ultimate goal of strategic planning appears to be to act as a step towards integration at a higher level, such as cabinet. Sewell (1983) criticizes the strategic approach to planning because planning done by a single agency, while purporting to reflect public interest, only reflects that interest with respect to that particular agency's mandate. It should be noted that there are mechanisms, such as referrals and guidelines, to integrate decision making at the operational level among resource agencies. Other integrating bodies, such as the Regional Resource Management Committees, were disbanded during the "period of restraint". In the Thompson River basin the RRMC played a role in both the Thompson River Basin Preplanning Study and the Nicola Strategic Plan, but was disbanded prior to the 140 development of the Thompson-Bonaparte Strategic Plan. One example of an effective integrating mechanism at the provincial level was the Environmental Land Use Committee Secretariat, which acted to bring resource agencies together at the Provincial level. However, the ELUC Secretariat was absorbed into the Ministry of Environment in 1980 and nothing has since taken its place. One of the Fraser River Estuary Study's strong points was its involvement of many different agencies and governments in the study. In total there were ten provincial and eight federal agencies involved with three regional districts and twelve municipalities. The final product of study, FREMP, has incorporated integration into its planning process by involving many different agencies and governments in the management structure and in its referral processes. The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan was another plan developed through a great deal of cooperation. This integrated planning process was a cooperative effort of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment designed to preserve community watersheds while still promoting logging. The Norrish Creek Plan involved a variety of interests and these parties meet once a year to discuss the previous year's management actions and plans for the upcoming year. Unfortunately, with exception of programs like the Fraser River Estuary Study, the "period of restraint" inhibited the integration among resource agencies. Not only were integration mechanisms discouraged, but each agency was expected to get its own house in order and to decide on its own objectives. Only when the development of the water resource had direct implications on another agency was that agency allowed to participate, and then only in a very limited manner. Dorcey (1987b) cites other ways in which restraint inhibited successful integration, including: 1) During this period the focus of management activities was kept on continuing to collect inventories, on monitoring, and impact assessment when more focus should have been placed on strategic planning and policy analysis. 141 2) This failure to focus on strategic planning hindered the ability of regional resource managers to come to grips with what their specific goals should be. Because strategic planning was intended to be the first step in the integration of different resource interests, the failure to develop strategic plans affected integration among resource agencies. 3) Diminished research budgets adversely affected the bank of knowledge which assists in successful integration. 7.5 MULTIPLE MEANS PLANNING The majority of water resource plans developed in the Fraser Basin since 1970 have taken a variety of approaches to water management issues, such as flood control, fishery maintenance, water allocation and water quality. As in other regions, flood control was the water management issue initially approached through a variety of methods. Even the Dominion-Provincial and Fraser River Boards, both established before the acceptance of multiple means planning, recognized the value of other approaches in reducing flood- related damage. Both recommended that flood proofing, flood warnings and floodplain zoning be used in conjunction with the upstream storage of flood water. A multiple means approach to water resource planning in the Fraser River basin is necessary for several reasons. First, the traditional structural methods of water management are no longer accepted without question. Technological fixes, such as dams and diversions, are becoming increasingly expensive to construct and maintain. This was the case in the Thompson-Bonaparte, Shuswap, and Fraser Delta Strategic Plans where, unlike the Nicola, structural solutions were limited because of budget restrictions. Secondly, the environmental and social costs of so-called mega-projects, and even mini- projects, are no longer blindly accepted by the public as a cost of development. Thirdly, other approaches to management have proven potentially more beneficial than the traditional approaches. Finally, in some regions of the basin, water supplies have been 142 fully allocated, and only alternatives such as demand management will provide additional sources of supply. The use of alternative means to deal with flood control has become increasingly important. As costs for the construction of new dams and diversions continue to rise such alternatives become less feasible. At the same time however, the need for effective means of flood control is becoming more important as developments mushroom on the river's floodplain, particularly in the Lower Mainland. If the predictions are accurate the Fraser River basin can expect to feel the effects of further flooding in the future. 7.6 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE PLANNING Prior to 1973 water resources planning was primarily concerned with preventing flood damage. There were exceptions however, as the Dominion-Provincial Board and the Fraser River Board were forced to consider the potential effects of development on the river's salmon stock. Almost any dam constructed in the basin, especially along the river's mainstem, would have a detrimental effect on one of the world's most valuable salmon fisheries. Thus developments, such as the Moran dam which was to be built on the mainstem Fraser, were opposed by a wide variety of interests. The majority of water resource plans developed within the Fraser basin since 1973 have promoted economic development and environmental enhancement. Some of the plans have been very explicit, such as the Fraser River Estuary Study, which has as its primary purpose to balance further development within the Estuary with the need to protect the environment. Other plans, while not so explicit, have balanced the needs of the agricultural sector with maintaining the fishery (i.e. the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan), power generation with the fishery (i.e. the Nechako River Management Plan), and lakeshore development with water quality (i.e. the Shuswap Lake Strategic Environmental Management Plan). The Fraser River Flood Control Agreement is the most ambiguous plan, simple stating its objective was to develop an integrated plan for the further flood 143 protection, utilization and control of the water resources of the Fraser River basin (Canada-British Columbia 1976). None of the plans assessed addressed the issue of the distribution of costs and benefits of any of the proposed developments. The need to consider economic and environmental objectives will become more pressing as water supplies come under increasing pressure from both the demands of developers and environmentalists. These demands will need to be balanced evenly to promote environmental quality while still allowing for economic development. This is especially true in those areas which to this point have not been completely exploited for their natural resources. 1.1 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION The evaluation of water resource development has changed over the past three decades, although this change is not adequately reflected in water resources planning and management in the Fraser River basin. The typical water resource development in the 1950s was a project with tangible outputs, such as a source of water, navigation, power, or flood control (Smith 1988). The major benefits of these projects were relatively easily quantified monetarily, and outputs for which a market value was incalculable were discounted as being unimportant. In addition, the effects of these early projects were often perceived as generally being limited to the surrounding region for a relatively short length of time. In contrast, Smith (1988) characterizes today's issues as being more policy oriented than project based, and are wide ranging both geographically and chronologically. In addition, the intangibles of the fifties have become the overriding public concern of the eighties, and the issues are becoming increasingly technologically complex. The failure to evaluate plans for their policy implication in addition to their structural components is a flaw which may invite serious repercussions in the future. This assessment did not 144 examine how or whether provincial water policy is assessed, but it did examine how sub- regional and operational plans have been evaluated in the Fraser River basin. The evaluation of planning in the Fraser River basin has generally been limited to the fifties-style evaluation of specific economic developments, such as a dam. In addition, with one or two exceptions, the evaluation is oriented in favor of the traditional economic approaches with only passing consideration of environmental or social costs. The Nicola Strategic Plan was a classic example of this approach. A Cost-Benefit Analysis was conducted on a specific economic proposal - the dam at the mouth of Nicola lake; however, the only factor considered was the economic value of the fishery and the irrigated land. There was little formal consideration of the intangible environmental or social costs, such as other users of the water resources or effects on the river's inhabitants downstream of Nicola Lake. In one interview it was stated that the other strategic plans developed in the basin were under a number of constraints which limited their ability to conduct an evaluation, including the speed at which they had to be developed and the limited scope they were allowed to examine. In addition, the Fraser Delta, Thompson-Bonaparte, and Shuswap Lake Strategic Plans do not contain a specific economic proposal, such as a dam, so a cost benefit analysis was deemed unnecessary, and there were no alternative management strategies developed because it was felt that the initial recommendations were straight forward and adequate. In contrast to the strategic plans, the Coquitlam River Water Management Study evaluated many lake management alternatives, for both their economic and environmental effects. The study also examined how different uses of the riverbank would affect the river's quality and fish habitat. Similarly, the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board evaluated the System E projects both for their economic costs and benefits, and for their environmental effects. This was done on a project-by-project basis and for different combinations of projects. The board's dyking program is evaluated both for its costs and 145 benefits, and its environmental impacts. Neither plan however, assessed the social costs of its recommendations; who would benefit the most and what costs would be accrued by whom were questions not addressed. The multiple objective evaluation of alternative water management schemes might be the most important step in the entire planning process (Smith 1988). In the near future increasingly difficult decisions will need to be made over water resource use. The quality of those decisions will depend on whether we are able to compare alternatives and consequences. 7.8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public involvement in water resources planning in the Fraser basin has been sporadic at best. A few of the planning processes have gone out of their way to involve the public while others have not even considered it. The first suggestion that the public should be involved in the planning process is found in the Dominion-Provincial Board's terms of reference which stipulated that the public was free to become involved in the board's activities, although nothing ever came out of this stipulation. Using the ladder of participation developed by Arnstein (1969) (See Figure 4), in an attempt to classify how the public has been involved in water resources planning and management in the Fraser River basin, one finds that the public has at best reached rung 5, Placation. Arnstein defines placation as involving the public in an advisory role. In both cases, in the Fraser River Estuary Study and the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan, the public advised the planning team on how to involve the public in a more constructive manner. In general however, the public only reached rung 4, Consultation on Arnstein's "Ladder". Arnstein defines consultation as inviting citizen opinion. Many of the planning processes have included public hearings where members of the public were allowed to express their opinions or voice concerns. This entire discussion hinges on the 146 understanding that the public even makes it on to the ladder in the first place which was not the case in three of the four strategic plans done in the basin. Under the Canada Water Act, public participation was identified as an integral part of river basin planning and implementation (Brule et al. 1981), and upon its acceptance public participation was used at many different stages in the planning processes in the Fraser basin. Some of the planning processes undertaken in the basin found it difficult to design forums in which the public could effectively become involved. The Thompson basin preplanning exercise was cited by Brule et al. (1981) as have great difficulty in involving the public. As stated earlier other processes such as the Nicola Basin Strategic planning process and the Fraser Estuary Study involved members of the public in designing the public participation process. In addition, many of the plans involved the public in identifying issues of concern and in reviewing a draft plan. The Nicola Basin Strategic Plan, the Coquitlam River Management Study, the Thompson Preplan and the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan all fall into this category. In obvious contrast to the Nicola Basin Strategic plan are the Thompson-Bonaparte, Shuswap, and Fraser Delta Environmental Management Plans. These plans were completed during or immediately following the "period of restraint". In several interviews it was brought up that during this period that public participation was forbidden by an unnamed provincial cabinet minister. This same minister equated public participation only with voting in provincial elections. During this time there was only limited contact with public interest groups and such contact was threatened if the involvement was too serious or too visible. The evaluation of the River Basin Planning and Implementation Programs, undertaken by Brule et al. in 1981, made several generalizations about public participation in river basin planning and implementation. In this study one of the foci was the Okanagan Basin 147 Study and attention was given to how the public was involved in that planning process. The generalizations resulting from the study undertaken by Brule et al. include: 1) The general public can be divided into two groups: the active public and the inactive public. Members of the active public make it a point to become involved in the management of a region's natural resources. The members of the inactive public are not affiliated with interest groups and do not usually become involved in management programs. Public participation programs are usually aimed at involving the inactive public. 2) The traditional mechanisms for public participation are usually best suited to the needs and style of the active public. Involvement mechanisms, such as public hearings and taskforces, usually attract interest from interest groups and not the inactive public. 3) A frequent problem has been avoiding conflict between elected representatives and the public participation program. Public participation is often seen as undermining a representative's role in representing their constituents. 4) The conclusions that early studies were too time consuming and that future studies should be done quicker has implications for future public participation. If the planning phase is reduced this will in turn reduce the amount of time allowed for public input. New mechanisms for involving the public will need to be developed to take the place of the time consuming methods used in the 1970s. While these generalizations were made for planning exercises undertaken under the Canada Water Act they hold true for planning exercises carried out by provincial ministries. This is especially true of point four when discussing the strategic planning process. One of the goals of the strategic planning process was to streamline the planning process. As Brule et al. concludes this streamlining will seriously affect how the public is allowed to participate in the planning process. As we have seen, participation in water resource planning following the implementation of the strategic planning process has been 148 sporadic. However, how the public has been involved in planning in the Fraser River basin has been affected by factors outside of the planning study and it is difficult to determine the exact effect that streamlining the planning process has had on public participation. 7.9 IMPLEMENTATION Implementation strategies, or action plans, are a common feature of water resource plans in the Fraser basin today. Such strategies have evolved from a recommendation in the Coquitlam River Management Study to annual work plans being written under the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan. The Coquitlam Study suggested that an action plan of some sort would be helpful in guiding the implementation of the recommendations, and in demonstrating where implementation problems may exist. In addition to recommending an implementation strategy, the Coquitlam River Management Study makes the comment that an implementation committee should be set up to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made in the study. The concept of an implementations strategy was taken farther by the Strategic Plans of the early and mid-1980s. Strategic plans designated management responsibilities, implementation dates, and expected costs over a three to five year time span. The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan, which mandates that annual work plans be developed for each agency involved in the management of the watershed. The existence of an implementation strategy however, does guarantee success. For example, in one interview it was stated that implementation of a plan's recommendations has been hindered in two ways, even with an implementation strategy in place. The first is that there is simply a lack of funds to implement many of the recommendations. The second is the lack of a policy framework at the provincial level. An example of this policy vacuum is found in the conflict between fisheries and agriculture in the B.C. interior. Plans would recommend that water be allocated for instream flows, and when the next water licence application was submitted it would be turned down on the basis of the 149 recommendations for allocating a region's water supply found within the plan. Often this decision would be appealed to the provincial level and the plan's recommendations would be overturned and the water allocated for irrigation. Ensuring that recommendations are implemented has also been hindered recently as regional managers are no longer required to file annual reports. These annual reports were meant to keep track of the progress made towards fulfilling the recommendations found within the plans. 7.10 REVIEW STRATEGY The water management plans developed within the Fraser Basin are, for the most part, subject to some manner of review. The strategic plans are all intended to be reviewed at five year intervals; this is important because strategic plans are developed using the existing data base which may be incomplete. During the planning process it may be necessary to make judgements based on this incomplete information base. This uncertainty was addressed through the inclusion of the five year review and re-evaluation process (O'Riordan 1981). The Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed plan is reviewed annually. The Norrish Creek Planning Team met for the first annual review in the spring of 1989, at which time it was discovered that many of the previous year's objectives had not been accomplished. Following the meeting, at which the next year's work plan was established, there was a flurry of activity to catch up. The experiences of Norrish Creek and the Fraser Delta were contrasted in one interview. Implementation of the recommendations found in the Fraser Delta Plan is left up to each individual agency or branch with no review for at least five years. This has led to frustration among those involved in the initial planning process because there is no feedback on the progress being made towards accomplishing the objectives set out in the plan. 150 Another approach that has been taken is the setting up of committees to oversee the process and to re-evaluate it as time goes on. The Nechako River Management plan is overseen by a Steering Committee that has the responsibility of reviewing the progress made towards implementing the recommendations found within the Settlement Agreement. It was also suggested that the Coquitlam river study's proposed implementation committee be retained after all the recommendations had been implemented, presumably to act as some sort of review board in the future. FREMP is another example of how a review or reevaluation may be undertaken. When the concept of forming some sort of management was first examined in the Fraser River Estuary Study Phase I great pains were taken to emphasize that the final product should be process rather than plan oriented. The Study's summary termed this type of proposal as a "Process plan" (Canada-British Columbia 1978). It was called a "process plan" because the proposal deals with both organization and process as an inseparable whole. The process plan was an attempt to achieve an organization that was not highly structured, that was flexible and adaptive, but had an ultimate decision making body. This type of organizational structure better ensures that there is ongoing reevaluation of all its activities and that if changes in society's values dictate a change in how the estuary is managed the program will be equipped to deal with those changes. 7.11 ECONOMIC GOOD Pricing the water resource is a policy matter which must be dealt with at the provincial level, and according to some of those interviewed it will be discussed in the Strategic Program Plan for Water Management. The Ministry of Environment currently has in place some simple pricing mechanisms for hunting, fishing, commercial guiding and water use (British Columbia 1989a). However, for the most part these fees have not been used to promote the efficient utilization of the resource, including water, and environmental quality. 151 None of the plans used in this assessment were evaluated using this criterion. However, it was interesting to note that none of the plans reviewed, even those which dealt specifically with allocation issues, suggested that pricing water might be one way to deal with the conflicts over supply allocation. This is true especially in the interior where the use of water is under intense dispute. Pricing water could help increase the efficiency of water use, especially in irrigation, and it could help allocate water between various uses, such as fisheries and irrigation. 152 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS Water resources planning and management in the Fraser River basin has matured from the period when management activities were narrowly conceived and commonly associated with licensing water allocation, clearing snags, and keeping channels clear. Over the past four decades planning and management of the basin's water resources has continued to deal with these activities, as well as address new issues such as pollution, the conflict between the fisheries and agriculture, and development of the river's estuary. In general, the evolution of water resources planning and management in the Fraser basin has paralleled the evolution of water resources planning and management principles in the literature. Occasionally however, planning in the Fraser basin seems to have ignored some of the principles when it was felt that they might pose an obstacle to economic development or complicate the planning process. When these principles were incorporated into water resources planning in the Fraser basin they have been used to different extents and with varying intensities. The following review consists of two parts: first, each principle is examined and examples of how it was incorporated into water resources planning in the Fraser basin are highlighted. The second part of the review examines the area plans that have been developed in the basin and highlights their relative strengths and weaknesses. It is hoped that these discussions will reveal examples of how the principles might be better incorporated into water resources planning and management. 8.1 THE USE OF THE PRINCIPLES 8.1.1 Basin-wide Planning Basin-wide planning in the Fraser River basin has been undertaken at several different spatial levels. The Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin examined the resources 153 of the entire Fraser River basin, while the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan focused on a small watershed in the Lower Fraser Valley. Both of these plans represent basin-wide planning not only because of their hydrological boundaries, but also because they attempted to integrate the management of water and its related land resources. Other plans such as the Fraser River Board's System E plan focused on the basin, but did not concern themselves with issues which extended beyond the river's edge. Other plans had their boundaries set as part of the strategic planning process and were typically oriented around a set of watersheds or portions of basins and most did not consider related resource management issues that were not directly associated with the water resource. This was the case in the Nicola basin where the strategic plan really only examined the affect agriculture land use had on the region's water resources, but did not address other possible land uses. Other plans such as the Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lake Management plan or the Fraser River Estuary Study were limited to a well defined issue or area and did not consider other issues or resources. 8.1.2 Multiple Purpose Planning All the planning processes recognized the multiple purpose nature of the basin's water supply. Some of the potential uses considered included power generation, fisheries, recreation, waste dilution, irrigation, water supply and transportation. However, none of the plans explicitly addressed the possibility of new uses being made of the river in the future. From the Columbia River comes an example of a use that was not widely considered ten years ago, but has emerged as a leading use of the river in certain areas. Windsurfing in the Columbia River Gorge has emerged as one of the top attractions in that region, and has spurred a small economic boom in several communities along the river. To ensure that uses which may develop in the future are left open as a possible option it is essential that water resource planning expect "surprises". To better adapt to these "surprises" it is important that management options be kept open by maintaining a 154 particular level of water quality, or by reserving a portion of a river's flow for use in the future. In addition, there must be a greater attempt made at recognizing uses which have not become institutionalized or are not part of the mainstream, including aboriginal uses. 8.1.3 Integration The majority of planning processes assessed were integrated; however, the amount of integration varied tremendously from plan to plan. Some of the plans such as the Norrish Creek Plan involved a number of sectors, governments and disciplines. Others, such as the Fraser Delta or Shuswap Lake Strategic Environmental Plans, were done "in house" and involved a number of disciplines, but only one sector and one level of government. The Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lake Management Plan seems to have been the only plan that was not integrated. The plan does not state who was involved in the planning process other than the consultant. Within the Fraser basin there are many examples of cooperation among the senior levels of government including the early basin boards, the Thompson River Preplan and the Fraser River Estuary Study. The best example of cooperation in planning and management between two distinct resource ministries is the Norrish Creek IWMP which was developed cooperatively between the Ministries of Environment and Forests and involved a number of other participants. The importance of integration is illustrated by the Dominion-Provincial and Fraser River Boards. It has been theorized that the relative ineffectiveness of these two boards is at least partially attributable to their failure to include local government in their activities. 8.1.4 Local Institutions The creation of a local management institution was addressed in several of the plans with the best illustration being the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) recommended by the Estuary Study. Although it is not an ideal example of a local management organization FREMP does satisfy to some extent the criteria laid out in the 155 literature as defining an effective local management organization. FREMP's strengths lay in its involvement of a wide number of agencies, organizations and people. This includes local government institutions such as the Regional Districts and local municipalities. In addition, the program's attempts to coordinate development activities through a Central Project Registry and referral process along with the area designation program are part of the foundation which leads towards local resource management. Other suggestions relating to the formation of local management institutions are found in the Coquitlam River Water Management Study, and the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan. In both cases however, the recommendations retained the existing water management orientation. 8.1.5 Multiple Means Planning The majority of the plans approached the issue of water resource management from a variety of directions by considering a number of alternative methods of management, in many cases both structural and non-structural. Among the plans assessed, the best example of a multiple means approach to management is the strategy adopted by many of the plans for flood control. Even the Dominion-Provincial and Fraser River Boards, created before the acceptance of multiple means planning, recognized the value of alternatives other than flood control structures. Other plans have followed suit and in the Fraser River basin flood control is approached from a number of directions including flood protection, floodproofing, floodplain mapping and zoning, and dyking. Other uses approached in a multiple means fashion include pollution control and water supply. 8.1.6 Multiple Objective Planning The majority of the plans had a variety of objectives, primarily oriented around economic development through flood control, irrigation, or power generation. However, many of the plans also recognized the value of protecting the environment through the wise use of a region's resources. The most explicit recognition of these two objectives is 156 found in the Fraser River Estuary Study which attempted to balance development with protecting the environment in the river's estuary. Other plans balanced the needs of agriculture with fisheries, power generation with the fishery and lakeshore development with a variety of issues. While economic and environmental objectives were explicitly defined in many of the plans, social objectives were reflected more implicitly in issues such as recreation and water quality. 8.1.7 Multiple Objective Evaluation Under the principle of multiple objective evaluation, economic, environmental, and social objectives are all to be considered in evaluating alternative management strategies. This evaluation would determine which strategy offered the greatest benefits with the fewest costs. While several of the plans did evaluate the potential environmental impacts, the majority of the planning processes limited their evaluation, if any were done at all, to a strict cost-benefit assessment of an economic structure, such as a dam. There was little priority given to examining the possible social consequences of building flood control structures other than those directly related to economic development. In addition, there were no investigations done to determine the distribution of costs and benefits in any of the plans. In the future there must be greater consideration given to the potential impacts of alternative management strategies that do not necessarily involve the construction of dams or diversions. 8.1.8 Public Participation The public has been involved in the majority of the planning processes in the Fraser basin the exceptions being three of the Strategic Environmental Plans which were completed shortly after public participation was discouraged by the provincial government. None of the processes however, offer a good example of involving the public throughout the planning process. The public's role was generally limited to suggesting issues and 157 reviewing draft plans. There were exceptions however, such as the Fraser River Estuary Study which included a number of methods with which to involve the public, but as with the others it really did not involve them in the actual decision making process. In addition, several of the planning processes, including the Estuary Study, involved the public in designing the plan's public participation process. To be more effective, planning in the Fraser basin must involve the public to a greater extent rather than simply identifing issues and reviewing draft plans. 8.1.9 Implementation Strategy To implement recommendations many plans have set out specific strategies. The typical implementation strategy outlined specific agency responsibilities, a schedule and possible costs. The most effective implementation stategy in the Fraser basin was associated with the Norrish Creek IWMP, and its effectiveness is probably attributable to the annual meeting at which the previous year's accomplishments are highlighted and the next year's action plan is laid out. The other plans completed in the basin rely on each agency to ensure that the recommendations found within each plan are carried out and this has led to uncertainty as to what is actually being accomplished in terms of achieving the plan's recommendations. An implementation strategy does not guarantee that a plan's recommendations will be implemented. In the Fraser basin, recommendations were often set aside when budgets were tight, or when the recommendations were ignored at the provincial level. In addition, the implementation of any recommendation requires the committment of the implementing agency, and if that committment is lacking then the recommendation will not be implemented. 158 8.1.10 Review Process To help adjust for changes in society's goals and to better address new uses of the resource, planning must involve a process which will allow it to review or re-evaluate plans at periodic intervals. In the Fraser basin many of the plans involved a review process, although their effectiveness varied tremendously. The strategic environmental management plans are intended to be reviewed every five years. This extended period of time between the completion of the plan and its review has caused some concern among several planners in the basin. It is felt that too much time was allowed to pass without any type of review into what specific activities were being undertaken to implement the plan's recommendations and that evolving issues could not be adequately addressed. In contrast, the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan's planning team gathers annually to review the accomplishments of the previous year. This annual meeting has acted as a great motivator by "embarrassing" various agencies into undertaking the tasks assigned to them in the previous year's action plan. The Fraser River Estuary Study addressed the issue of plan review in a different manner by recommending that a "process plan" be set up. The process approach would emphasize the on-going nature of planning and management rather than the one shot plan which more often than not sits on the shelf collecting dust. 8.1.11 Treating Water as an Economic Good One strategy not addressed in any of the plans, even those dealing specifically with issues of allocation, was water pricing. This principle is a major component of a demand management strategy. It was not considered even as an avenue of further investigation in plans such as the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan, which dealt primarily with the conflict between instream and consumptive uses. Through the course of the interviews it was suggested that this issue was going to be dealt with at the provincial strategic program level for the Water Management Branch. 159 8.1.12 Summary The principles, with the exception of multiple objective evaluation, have all been incorporated into water resources planning in the Fraser River following their acceptance in the literature. In fact several of the principles, such as multiple means planning, were used prior to their acceptance in the literature. The manner in which the principles have been used has varied a great deal; some of the planning processes have made better use of the principles than others. This provides an opportunity to learn by comparing how the principles have been used and which manner appears to be more effective. 8.2 THE FLANS Each of the planning processes incorporated the principles of water resources management in a different manner. The following discussion highlights how the principles were used, what seemed to work the best and what appeared not to have worked. 8.2.1 The Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin The Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin appears to have been a very innovative planning process. The Board was one of the first multiple purpose planning processes in Canada, it incorporated principles that had not been formally accepted yet, such as multiple means planning, and it focused on an entire basin and all of its uses rather than a portion. In addition, the importance of the Fraser River's salmon stock forced the Board to consider the environmental implications of building large scale dams on the Fraser. The Board involved a number of different sectors and disciplines within the Provincial and Federal Governments, but integration was also one of its weaknesses. The Board's failure to include local governments may have led to its relative ineffectiveness. 160 8.2.2 The Fraser River Board The Fraser River Board's use of the principles is very similar to that of the Dominion- Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. The biggest difference between the two boards was the focus of the investigation. The Dominion-Provincial Board focused on the uses of the basin beyond the river's shoreline, whereas the Fraser River Board concentrated on Flood Control and Power Generation and examined other uses only when they were impacted upon by the plan's flood control strategy. As with the Dominion-Provincial Board, the Fraser River Board's failure to include local government interests may have led to the Board's relative ineffectiveness in implementing its recommendations. The Fraser River Board also took a multiple means approach to planning by examining a number of methods of flood control including dyking, flood warnings, flood mapping and flood-proofing. The importance of the Fraser River's salmon stock forced the Board to consider environmental considerations such as the potential impact of large dams on the mainstem Fraser. 8.2.3 Flood Control Agreements The Fraser River Joint Advisory Board focused on the entire Fraser River basin; however, the board failed to examine other resources or uses ocurring beyond the river's edge. There is no mention of public involvement or involvement on the part of the local government. The plan did make extensive use of environmental considerations by going so far as to have an Ecology Committee that examined the environmental impacts of all the proposed projects singularly and in combination. This was really the first example of Environmental Impact Assessment in the Fraser basin. However, this plan did not examine the social costs and benefits or the distributional issues associated with them. 161 8.2.4 The Coquitlam River Water Management Plan The Coquitlam River Water Management Study offers several examples of how to incorporate the principles of planning. First, the study focuses on a distinct watershed, and it examines not only the management of the water resources, but also the management of the adjacent land resources. In addition, the study evaluates a number of management alternatives not only for their economic effectiveness, but also for their environmental impacts. The study failed however, to assess the alternatives for their social implications. The study briefly considers the idea of a Coquitlam River Water Management Authority. This concept had been developed previously and the study's participants felt it deserved further consideration. However, in the study's recommendations the idea of an Authority was abandoned and the study's recommendations remained within the existing management structure. The study's participants recognized the need for an implementation strategy, although they did not develop one for this study. They did suggest that future water management plans have implementation strategies and also an oversight committee to ensure that the recommendations were being implemented. 8.2.5 The Fraser River Estuary Study The Fraser River Estuary Study is also a good example of how some of the principles might be incorporated into planning. Its explicit objective of coordinating development with protecting the environment offers possibilities for plans developed in the future. In addition, the mechanisms it used to involve the public illustrate that there is more to public involvement than information meetings. The Study's emphasis on the formation of a planning process rather than an estuary plan offers opportunities that must be considered in the future. Such a process would be better equipped to deal with changes in priorities, goals, and other factors that influence the implementation of a plan. One of the Study's 162 strengths appears to lay in its involvement of a large number of participants from a variety of different government sectors and with a variety of disciplines. 8.2.6 The Thompson River Basin Preplan The Thompson River Basin Preplanning Taskforce was set up to identify the issues confronting water resources management in the Thompson River basin, and then to design the framework in which a more in-depth plan could be completed. While the Preplan is identified as the Thompson River basin preplan it does not actually encompass all of the Thompson basin; for example, the Nicola River sub-basin was not considered in the exercise. The Preplan does consider a broad range of uses of the water resource under a multiple objective framework. The Preplan provides a fairly specific framework to follow in order to undertake a more comprehensive planning study, but the the plan does not call for a review or re-evaluation in the future to assess whether the needs of the region are being met. 8.2.7 The Nicola Basin Strategic Plan The Nicola Basin Strategic Plan was the first strategic plan to be completed in British Columbia. As the title implies the plan focuses on an entire sub-basin, however, it only examines a limited number of related land uses, particularly agriculture. The Nicola Basin plan recognized the variety of uses the water served, but its focus was primarily on the conflict between the agricultural users and those supporting instream uses. The primary focus of the plan is the Nicola Lake Dam, and for this project an extensive Cost- Benefit Analysis was completed. The CBA compared the use of the water resource for consumptive uses, particularly irrigation, and for instream uses such as maintaining the fishery. However, there was little evaluation done on other economic or environmental implications or on possible social costs and benefits. The planning process involved the public in several ways including the design of the participation process, and in identifying 163 issues and reviewing the draft plan. Other governments and agencies were given a chance to respond to the plan and their responses, along with the public's responses are found in the plan itself. The plan concludes by making a series of recommendations including one that calls for the formation of local committees to assist in the management of the region's water resource. The plan states that there is a need to involve the water users, specifically agricultural users, in the management of the resource. 8.2.8 The Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan, The Shuswap Lake Environmental Management Plan, and The Fraser Delta Environmental Management Plan These three Strategic Environmental Management Plans have a great deal in common and will be addressed jointly. The incorporation of the principles into these three plans ' was hindered most by the budget and manpower cutbacks of the early 1980s and the impression that the Provincial Government was too interventionist. In one manner or another the "period of restraint" restricted the involvement of the public in the planning process, and it hindered the integration between sectors and governments. Other principles that were not used include basin-wide planning, the formation of local management institutions, and multiple objective evaluation. The budget restrictions served to emphasize the importance of multiple means planning by forcing the planners to consider alternative water management strategies that were not as expensive as structural solutions. This has been a lesson that has carried over until today as financial resources are being spread over a greater number of activities and the money is not always available for the construction of a dam or diversion. The strategic management plans are all accompanied by an implementation strategy that outlines agency responsibilities, possible expenses, and a tentative schedule. In addition, the strategic plans are all intended to be reviewed after five years. 164 8.2.9 The Chimney, Felker, and Brunson Lake Management Plan This plan was very site specific and dealt primarily with conflict between the lake's agricultural users and the recreational users. It was the only plan assessed that was completed by a consultant hired by the BC Ministry of Environment. The consultant involved the public in identifying issues and in reviewing the draft plan, but there is no indication as to whether any other governmental agencies were involved in the planning process. A number of solutions were recommended that involved both structural and non• structural adjustments, but whether these alternatives were evaluated for their social, environmental and economic implications was not indicated. Because of the conflict between the agricultural and recreational users the consultant was forced to recognize the multiple use nature of the lakes, including their use by waterfowl. The plan's recommendations were not accompanied by an implementation strategy, nor was there any type of future review or re-evaluation recommended. 8.2.10 Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan Of the thirteen plans examined the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan appears to have incorporated the principles of water resources planning to the greatest extent. From its focus on the watershed to its emphasis on integration the plan provides some excellent examples of how the principles might be used. The plan examines a number of uses of the watershed and how they are inter-related, it also considers a number of alternative techniques to managing the watershed's resources. As the title suggests the Integrated Watershed Management Program is a joint effort, in this case it is between the Ministries of Environment and Forestry. In the Norrish Creek Plan they acted as co-proponents. In addition, the planning process involved a number of other participants including the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, BC Hydro and a forestry company. The public was involved in identifying issues and in reviewing the draft plan. The plan's use of a yearly review works not only to keep the plan in tune with the 165 participant's priorities, but it also acts to assess the progress made towards implementing the plan's recommendations. This type of activity appears to be successful and a function that should become part of future planning processes. The Norrish Creek plan does not indicate whether there were any alternative management strategies considered or whether the recommendations were ever evaluated for their economic, social or environmental implications. 8.2.11 The Nechako River Management Plan The Nechako Management plan differs from the other area oriented plans completed in the Fraser basin because it was completed in response to the Settlement Agreement signed by the Province, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Alcan. Because the plan is oriented around the Settlement Agreement it was actually more of a survey of the different uses of the water below Kenny Dam than an actual plan. The survey primarily consisted of an examination of how the water's uses might be affected by a change in the flow regime. The plan was not done on a basin-wide scale nor did it actively consider the region's resources beyond the water's edge. The plan's primary objective was to maintain the river's fishery and this is approached from several different angles, including stocking and increasing the flow. The implementation of the recommendations found within the Settlement Agreement are to be monitored by a Steering Committee composed of three members: one each from the Provincial Government, Federal Goverment and Alcan. The Steering Committee also appears to have the responsibility of reviewing the plan. 8.2.14 Summary Water resource planning in the Fraser River basin has incorporated the principles of planning as they have become accepted in the planning and management literature. However, the principles have been incorporated to different extents and in different styles, some with greater success than others. This has provided an opportunity to determine 166 how the principles have been both successfully and unsuccessfully incorporated into water resources planning in the Fraser River basin within the scope of this thesis. For example, the contrasting experiences in reviewing the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan and the Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan offers an insight into how plans should be re-evaluated. Similarly, the management program designed by the Fraser River Estuary Study offers lessons in setting up local management institutions, and the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin and the Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Program are examples of basin-wide planning that could be used as examples in other areas. Examining the use of the remaining principles will offer similar insights. The purpose of this thesis was to assess the evolution of water resource planning in the basin rather than examining one plan for its use of the principles. The broad nature of this thesis limited the depth to which any one plan or principle was examined, and little attention was given to how well the principle was incorporated or how much it was used. Future research could include in-depth examinations of a particular plan or principle or even more specifically how one principle was incorporated by one plan. 167 BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1972). "Report of the Commission: The New Grass Roots Government?; Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Urban Areas". Washington. Arnstein, S.R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation". Journal of the American Institute of Planners. (July 1969): 216-224. BC Engineering Company Limited. (1956). Report on the Investigation of the Columbia to Fraser River Diversion Project. Vancouver, B.C. Biswas, A.K. (ed.). Systems Approach to Water Management. New York:McGraw Hill. Black, Peter. (1987). Conservation of Water and Related Land Resources. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield. Bracken, D. (1973). "Social Goals and Evaluation of Resource Committments". Water Resources Bulletin 9 3. (June 1973):485-493. British Columbia, Department of Lands and Forests. (1954). Water Powers of British Columbia. Victoria. British Columbia, Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. (1967). Report of the Water Resources Service. Victoria:Queen's Printer British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1974). Environment and Landuse Committee Secretariat Yearbook. Victoria. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1978). Coquitlam River Water Management Plan. Water Investigations Branch. Victoria, B.C. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1983). Nicola Basin Strategic Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1984). "Policy and Procedures for Community Watershed Planning" (Appendix H). In Guidelines for Watershed Management of Crown Lands used as Community Water Supplies. Victoria. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1985). Fraser Delta Strategic Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1986). Thompson-Bonaparte Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1987). Shuswap Lake Environmental Management Plan. Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1989a). Nechako Water Management Plan. Northern Region and Planning and Assessment. Victoria, B.C. 168 British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. (1989b). "Securing the Goal of Sustainable Development". A submission to the Provincial Roundtable on Economy and Environment. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests and Lands. (1988). Norrish Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan. Victoria, B.C. Brule, B., F. Quinn, J. Wiebe, and B. Mitchell. (1981). An Evaluation of the River Basin Planning and Implementation Programs. Inland Waters Directorate. Ottawa, ON:Environment Canada. Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the North Fraser Harbour Commission. (1988). Memorandum of Understanding concerning an Environmental Management Plan for the North Fraser Harbour. Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada, Department of Public Works. (1978). "Proposed Improvements to the Fraser River Shipping Channel". Proceedings of a Public Information Meeting, May 17, 1978. Vancouver: Department of Public Works. Canada, Environment Canada. (1973). "Area-of-Origin Protectionism in Western Waters". Inland Waters Directorate Social Science Series No. 6. Canada, Environment Canada. (1975). Monograph on Comprehensive River Basin Planning. Ottawa, ON:Information Canada. Canada, Environment Canada. (1982). Canada Water Year Book 81-82:Water and the Economy. Ottawa:Canadian Government Publishing Centre. Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. (1979). Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel-Roberts Bank Port Expansion. Ottawa, ON:Supply and Services Canada. Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. (1985). CN Twin Tracking Program BC. Ottawa, ON:Supply and Services Canada. Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. (1986). Fraser-Thompson Corridor Review. Ottawa, ON:Supply and Services Canada. Canada, Public Works Canada. (1949). Fraser River System:History of Improvements 1871 to Date. Canada Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1953). Fourth Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1952). Third Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin. (1951). Second Annual Progress Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1956). Interim Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1958). Preliminary Report. Victoria, B.C. 169 Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Board. (1963). Final Report. Victoria B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Management Program Review Committee. (1984). An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Fraser River Estuary Management Program Review Committee. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (1986). Newsletter. New WestminstenFraser River Estuary Management Program. (March). Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (1988). Newsletter. New WestminstenFraser River Estuary Management Program. (March). Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study Steering Committee. (1978). Fraser River Estuary Study Summary. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase I. (1978). Key Findings and Recommendations. Victoria:Fraser River Estuary Study. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase II. (1982). A Living River by the Door. Surrey:Fraser River Estuary Study. Canada-British Columbia, Fraser River Joint Advisory Board. (1976). Fraser River Upstream Storage Review Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia. (1968). Information Guide. Fraser River Flood Control Program. Victoria, B.C. Canada-British Columbia. Thompson River Basin Pre-Planning Task Force. (1981). Preplanning Task Force Report. Victoria, B.C. Canada-United States, International Joint Commission. (1978). The Ecosystem Approach. Windsor. Canadaian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC). (1985). Social Impact Assessment:A Research Prospectus. Ottawa:Ministry of Supply and Services. Clark, S.D. (ed.). (1981). Environmental Assessment in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia. Dee, N., J. Baker, N. Dr'obny, K. Duke, I. Whitman and D. Fahringer. (1973). "An Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resource Planning". Water Resources Research 9 3: 523-535. Dorcey, A.H.J. (1981). "The Uncertain Quest for a Management Strategy in the Fraser Estuary". Canadian Water Resources Journal 6 4: 95-118. Dorcey, A.H.J. (1986). Bargaining in the Governance of Coastal Resources. Vancouver:Westwater Research Center. 170 Dorcey, A.H.J. (1987a). "Research for Water Resources Management:The Rise and Fall of Great Expectations". In Healy and Wallace. (1987). Canadian Aquatic Resources. Ottawa: Supply and Services. Dorcey, A.H.J. (1987b). "The Management of Super, Natural British Columbia". BC Studies 73 (Spring 1987): 14-42. Dorcey, A.H.J.(ed-). (1976). The Uncertain Future of the Lower Fraser. Vancouver:Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia. Draper, J.A. (1978). "Evolution of Citizen Participation in Canada". In B. Sadler, (ed.). (1978). Involvement and Environment. EdmontomThe Environment Council of Alberta. Foster, H. and W.R.D. Sewell. (1981). Water, the Emerging Crisis in Canada. Toronto:James Lorimer and Company. Fox, I. (1962). "The History of River Basin Planning in the United States". In Transactions:Proceedings of the 14th Annual BC Natural Resources Conference. Victoria: BC Natural Resources Conference. Fox, I. (1971). "The Water Resources Planning Act: A Historical Perspective". In Water and Related Land Resources Management:The Challenge Ahead. Cincinnati, Ohio. Washington:Water Resources Council. Fox, I. (No date). A speech entitled "Regional Resource Planning British Columbia". No audience listed. Fox, I. and L. Craine.(1961). "Objectives and Organizational Arrangements for Multipurpose Development and Management of Water Resources". In Resources for Tomorrow:A set of Background Papers. Ottawa:Queen's Printer. Frederick, K.D.. (1986). "The Legacy of Cheap Water". Resources. 83 (Spring 1986): 2-3. Gomez-Armal, J.C. and J.C. Day. (1987). "The Kemano Diversion: A Hindsight Assessment". In W. Nicholaichuk and F. Quinn (eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Interbasin Transfer of Water: Impacts and Research Needs for Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Gossage, P. (1985). "Water in Canadian History:An Overview". Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Research Paper #11. Greater Vancouver Regional District. (1989). Greater Vancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 1. Burnaby, BC:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Greenland, David. (1983). Guidelines for Modern Resource Management. Columbus:Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Gresko, J. and R. Howard. (1986). Fraser Port:Freightway to the Pacific. Victoria:Sono Nis Press. Griffith, C. (1979). "Water Development and Public Involvement:A Case Study of the Proposed Glengowan Dam and Reservoir". Canadian Water Resources Journal 4 2: 72-81. 171 Haith, D.A. and D.P. Loucks. (1976). "Multiobjective water resources planning". In A.K. Biswas (ed.). Systems Approach to Water Management. Hannah, Linda. (1987). From Abundant to Scarce Water Resources: An Evaluation of the Water Allocation Process and the Place of Instream Uses in British Columbia. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Victoria. Harvey, Cathy (ed.). (1982). Results of Public Involvement. Surrey:Fraser River Estuary Study. Healy, M.C. and R.R. Wallace. (1987). Canadian Aquatic Resources. Ottawa:Supply' and Services Holmes, B. (1972). A History of Federal Water Resources Programs, 1800-1960. Washington:United States Department of Agriculture. Hutchison, B. (1950). The Fraser. New York: Rinehart and Company Inc. James, Douglas and J.R. Rogers. (1979). "Economics and Water Resources Planning in America". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 47-64. Kennett, K. and M.W. McPhee. (1988). The Fraser River Estuary:An Overview of Changing Conditions. Vancouver. Kosinsi, L.A., W.R.D. Sewell, and C. Wu. (eds.). (1988). Land and Water Management:Chinese and Canadian Perspectives. EdmontomDepartment of Geography. Leversedge, F. (1974). Priorities in Water Management. Victoria:University of Victoria Press Lilienthal, CD. (1940). An address entitled "The Widening of Economic Opportunity through TVA" given at Columbia University, New York, January 1940. Lilienthal, CD. (1945). TVA:Democracy on the March. New York:Pocket Books. Linsley, Ray K. (1979). "Two Centuries of Water Planning Methodology". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 39-46. McDonald, J.L. (1957). "The History of Dykes and Drainage in B.C.". In D.B. Turner and J.D. Chapman (eds.). Transactions of the Tenth BC Natural Resources Conference. Victoria: BC Natural Resources Conference. Miller, M.L. et. al. (1987) "Natural Resource Management Systems". In Miller, Gale and Brown. (1987). Social Science in Natural Resources Management Systems. Boulder:Westview Press. Miller, M.L., R. P. Gale and P.J. Brown. (1987). Social Science in Natural Resources Management Systems. Boulder:Westview Press. Mitchell B. and J.S. Gardner, (eds.). (1983). River Basin Management:Canadian Experiences. Waterloo:Department of Geography. 172 Mitchell, B. (1984). "The Value of Water as a Commodity". Canadian Water Resources Journal. 9 2: 31-37. Mitchell, B. and R.R. Turkheim. (1977). "Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles, Practices and Canadian Experiences". In R.R. Krueger and B. Mitchell, (eds.). Managing Canada's Renewable Resources. Toronto: Methuen. Morrell, B. (1956). Our Nation's Water Resources - Policies and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Law School. O'Riordan, J. (1981). "New Strategies for Water Resources Planing in British Columbia". Canadian Water Resources Journal 6 4: 13-43. O'Riordan, J. (1983). "New Strategies for Water Resource Planning in British Columbia". In Mitchell B. and J.S. Gardner (eds.). (1983). River Basin Management: Canadian Experiences. Waterloo: The University of Waterloo. Ortolano, Leonard. (1979). "Water Planning and the Environment-1776-1976". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 65-78. Paget, A. F. and C.H. Clay. (1961). "Multi-Purpose Development of the Fraser River". In Resources for Tomorrow:A set of Background Papers. Ottawa:Queen's Printer. Parker, V.J. (1968). "Problems and Progress in Rationalizing the use of the Resources of the Lower Fraser Valley". In A.H. Siemens (ed.). Lower Fraser Valley:Evolution of a Cultural Landscape. VancouvenDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia. Patrick, K.E. (1964). "The Water Resources of British Columbia". In Inventory of the Natural Resources of British Columbia. Victoria:British Columbia Natural Resources Conference. Pearse, P.H., F. Bertrand and J. W. MacLaren. (1985). Currents of Change. Ottawa:Supply and Services. Pentland, R.L. (1983). "A Federal Perspective on River Basin Management". In Mitchell B. and J.S. Gardner (eds.) River Basin Management:Canadian Experiences. Waterloo: The University of Waterloo. Petersen, Margaret S. (1984). Water Resource Planning and Development. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice Hall. Powell, J.R. (1983). "River Basin Management in Ontario". In B. Mitchell and J. Gardner. River Basin Management: Canadian Experiences Price, D. (1959). "Organizations:A Social Scientist's View". Public Administration Review 19 2: 127 Quinn, F. (1985). "The Evolution of Federal Water Policy". Canadian Water Resources Journal 10 4: 21-32. 173 Rees, W.E. (1981). "Environmental Assessment and the Planning Process in Canada". In S.D. Clark (ed.). Environmental Assessment in Australia and Canada. Resources for Tomorrow. (1961). Background Papers for the Resources for Tomorrow Conference. Ottawa:Queens Printer. Robinson, J.E. (1979). "Demand Modification as a Supply Alternative: A Case Study of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada", unpublished manuscript, Department of Man-Environmental Studies, The University of Waterloo. Sadler, B. (ed.). (1978). Involvement and Environment. Edmonton:The Environment Council of Alberta. Sadler, B. and W. E. Cox. (1986). "Water Resources Management:The Socio-Political Context". Nature and Resources 22 3: 12-19. Sadler, B. ed. (1983). Water Policy for Western Canada: The Issues of the Eighties. Calgary:University of Calgary Press. Schad, T. (1979). "Water Resources Planning - Historical Development". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 9-25. Schwab, R. (1988). "Environmental Federalism" Resources (Summer 1988): 6-9. Schwartz, Harry E. (1979). "Water Resources Planning-Its Recent Evolution". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979). Selznick, P. (1984) 3d ed. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press Sewell, W.R.D. (1965). Water Management and Floods in the Fraser River Basin. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Sewell, W.R.D. (1974). "Water Resources Planning and Policy Making:Challenges and Responses". In F. Leversedge. Priorities in Water Management. Victoria:University of Victoria Press. Sewell, W.R.D. (1977). "Changing Approaches to Water Management in the Fraser River Basin". In White G. (ed.). (1977). Environmental Effects . of Complex River Development. Boulder:Westview Press. Sewell, W.R.D. (1978). "The Changing Content of Water Resources Planning: The Next Twenty Five Years". In Utton, A. and L. Teclaff. (1978). Water in a Developing World: The Management of a Critical Resource. Boulder: Westview Press. Sewell, W.R.D. (1981a). "Commentary". In Sadler, B. (1981) Water Policy for Western Canada:The Issues of The Eighties. Calgary:University of Calgary Press. Sewell, W.R.D. (1981b). "Commentary". In Sadler, B. (1981). Water Policy for Western Canada:The Issues of the Eighties. Calgary:University of Calgary Press. 174 Sewell, W.R.D. (1988). "Themes on Water Management in Canada". In Kosinski, L.A., W.R.D. Sewell, and W. Chuanjun. (eds.). (1988). Land and Water Management:Chinese and Canadian Perspectives. Edmonton:The University of Alberta. Sewell, W.R.D., J. Davis, A.D. Scott, and D.W. Ross. (1961). A Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis. Ottawa: Information Canada. Sewell, W.R.D., J. W. Handmer and S. I. Smith. (1985a). Water Planning in Australia. Canaberra:Highland Press. Sewell, W.R.D., J.T. Coppock, and A. Pitkethly. (1985b). Institutional Innovation in Water Management: the Scottish Experience. Norwich:Geo Books. Sheaffer, John, S.A. Starr, G. Davis, and A. Richmond. (1969). Metropolitan Water Resource Management. Chicago:University of Chicago. Sloan, P. (1974). "Floodplain Management in British Columbia" a paper presented at the Seminar on Regional Planning, Westwater Research Center, UBC. Smith, V.K. (1988). "Resource evaluation at the crossroads". Resources 90 (Spring 1988): 2-6. Sproule-Jones, M.H., and K.G. Peterson. (1976). "Pollution Control in the Lower Fraser:Who's in Charge". In A.H.J. Dorcey (ed.). The Uncertain Future of the Lower Fraser. Talisman Land Resource Consultants. (1987). Lake Management Plan for Chimney, Felker and Brunson Lakes. Vancouver, B.C. Tate, D. (1981). "River Basin Development in Canada". In Mitchell, B. and Sewell, W.R.D.. Canadian Resource Policies: Problems and Prospects. Toronto:Methuen. Tate, D. (1988). Water Demand Management in Canada:A Review and Assessment. Unpublished Manuscript. Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada. United Nations. (1962). Decentralization for Nationa and Local Development. New York:United Nations Organization. United Nations. (1972). Water Resources Project Planning. United Nations Water Resources Series. No. 41. United States, National Resources Planning Board. (1941). Development of Resources and Stabilization of Employment in the United States. Washington. United States, National Water Commission, Consulting Panel on Water Resource Planning. (1972a). Water Resource Planning. Springfield, VA:National Technical Information Service. United States, National Water Commission. (1972b). Water Resource Planning:A Panel Report for the National Water Commission. Arlington:National Water Commission. United States, National Water Commission. (1973). Water Policies for the Future. Washington:United States Government Printing Office. 175 United States, The President's Water Resources Policy Commission. (1950). A Water Policy for the People. WashingtomU.S. Government Printing Office Walters, C. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York:McMillan Publishing Company. Washington, State of Washington Water Research Center. (1970). A Water Planning Concept for the State of Washington. Pullman:Water Research Center. Water Management in Industrialized Countries. (1980). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Weber, Eugene W. (1979). "Water Planning-Overview". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 3-8. White, Gilbert. (1969). Strategies of American Water Management. Ann ArbonThe University of Michigan Press. White, Gilbert. (1977). "Comparative Analysis of Complex River Development", n White, G. (1977). Environmental Effects of Complex River Development. Boulder:Westview Press. Willeke, Gene E. (1979). "Social Aspects of Water Resources Planning". ASCE Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Journal. (March 1979): 79-90. 176 STATUTES Canadian and British Columbian Statutes British North American Act, 1867. Canada Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.F-14. Canada Water Act, R.S.C. 1970. British Columbia Environment and Management Act, S.B.C. 1980-81. c.14. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment Act, R.S.B.C. 1980. c.30. British Columbia Pollution Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1979. c.32. British Columbia Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1981. British Columbia Water Act, R.S. 1979, c.429. United States Statutes U.S. Federal Water Power Act, Act of June 10, 1920, United States Statutes at Large, 41, Stat. 1063. U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act, Act of March 3, 1925, United States Statutes at Large, 43, Stat. 1185, 1190. U.S. Flood Control Act, Act of 1965, United States Statutes at Large 49, Stat. 1570. U.S. Water Resources Planning Act, Act of July 22, 1965, United States Statutes at Large 79, Stat. 244. PERSONS CONTACTED 1. Linda Hannah, Planning and Assessment, Ministry of Environment 2. John Dick, Planning and Asssessment, Ministry of Environment 3. Mike Curry, Water Management Branch, Ministry of Environment 4. Mike McPhee, Fraser River Estuary Management Program 5. Susan Huber, B.C. Hydro 6. Sandy McDonald, Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment 7. Al Brown, North Fraser Harbour Commission 8. Paul Scott, Federal Environmental Assessmment and Review Office 9. James Leong, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada 10. Chris Sharma, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada 11. Keven Conlin, Department of Fisheries and Ocean