Chapter 12 Review Questions

T (see “Introduction”)

T (see “Introduction”)

F (see “Water Ethics”)

F (see “Water Quality”)

T (see “Introduction”)

F (see “Human Interventions in the Hydrological Cycle: Water Diversions”)

T (see “Droughts”)

F (see “Heritage Rivers”)

F (see “Lead in Urban Water Supply Systems in Canadian Cities”)

Lakes, rivers, and wetlands are all surface water features, while groundwater is underground. Rivers are moving water, while lakes and wetlands contain water that is not moving, or moving very slowly. Water can evaporate readily from lakes, rivers, and wetlands, but not from groundwater. Surface water accumulates due in part to precipitation inputs. Groundwater mainly accumulates from surface water passing into the ground. During dry periods, rivers are often recharged from groundwater aquifers. Wetlands are hybrid aquatic-terrestrial ecosystems. Water held in lakes and aquifers can be considered as a non-renewable supply of water, while the water is rivers can be considered as renewable, being constantly refilled by rain and snowfall.

(see “Introduction”)

The four reasons to divert water are to increase water supplies for a region or community, to deflect watercourses away from or around areas to protect them from flooding, to enhance river capacity to support activities such as ship movement or waste disposal, and to combine multiple water flows into one channel to facilitate hydroelectric generation.

(see “Human Interventions in the Hydrological Cycle: Water Diversions”)

The James Bay hydroelectric project is a megaproject whose main objectives serve to satisfy electricity needs in Quebec. The project aimed to double river flow in the La Grande River basin in northern Quebec by diverting water from adjacent catchments. The project area is over one-fifth of the province. The cost was estimated at $2 billion, but eventually became $14.6 billion over 15 years of development. In Phase I, the three hydroelectric plants built for this project had a total megawatt capacity of 10,283 MW.

(see “The James Bay Hydroelectric Project, Background”)

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, is the first “modern” Indigenous land claims agreement in Canada. It provided for land rights and guaranteed a process to deal with future hydroelectric developments. Its main provisions were for environmental and social impact assessment for future developments, monetary compensation, economic and social development, and income security for Cree hunters and trappers.

(see “James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement”)

No environmental impact assessment studies had predicted the appearance of mercury in reservoir fish. Evidence about elevated mercury levels in fish was available from earlier hydroelectric projects at the Smallwood Reservoir in Labrador and from Southern Indian Lake in Manitoba, but such impacts apparently were judged as short-lived and not significant for La Grande. A 1984 survey of the Cree at Chisasibi showed that 64 per cent of the villagers had unsafe levels of mercury in their bodies. It was expected that as time passed and the drowned vegetation completely decomposed, the release of mercury would return to normal (and safe) levels. Nevertheless, for up to 30 years, mercury levels in some waters and for some fish species were dangerous to people who consumed fish.

The pre-construction impact assessments also indicated that the estuarine fishery in La Grande was unlikely to survive development of the dams and reservoirs. Partly as a result of pressure exerted by local fishers, the river flow was not cut off until after an ice cover had formed on the river. Monitoring revealed the necessary freshwater pocket was thus created and remained in place throughout the winter. Thus, the predicted fish kill did not occur, and subsequent fish populations were about the same as in the pre-construction period.

(see “Mercury in reservoirs, La Grande Estuary Fish”)

Point sources are localized sources of pollution that are easy to identify, such as industrial and urban waste from manufacturing or sewage treatment plants. Non-point sources are harder to identify and come from wide areas, such as agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff is diffuse pollution that comes from whole landscapes and can contain a variety of pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Some urban runoff is also considered non-point source pollution, such as oil and salt from road surfaces. Because point sources are easier to identify and locate, they are easier to monitor and regulate. Non-point sources cannot be necessarily be attributed to one cause, or one location, and are much more difficult to control.

(see “Water Quality”)

Too often, attention does not go beyond the first layer, where concern focuses on environmental degradation and the economic costs imposed on downstream users. A second layer, receiving increased attention, is the link between diffuse pollution and negative impacts on ecosystem health or integrity, especially on human health. A third layer is diffuse pollution as a problem touching on human values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour. From this perspective, the fundamental problem is behaviour by individuals and groups, driven by inappropriate values, beliefs, and attitudes.

(see “Non-Point Sources”)

In 1972, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into an agreement to restore and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes. This agreement initially focused on addressing point sources of pollution, such as that from sewage treatment plants, to reduce phosphorus loading to lakes. It also required a study of other potential pollution sources to the great lakes including agriculture, forestry, and other land use activities.

The International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG) examined both eutrophication from elevated nutrients, and contamination from toxic substances. They considered the contributions of agriculture, forestry, transportation, and waste disposal, as well as natural processes such as lakeshore and riverbank erosion. They found that non-point inputs accounted for 32–90 per cent of phosphorus loading in the Great Lakes, and that loads exceeded the recommended limits in all lakes. Agriculture was identified as the main source. The main source of sediment was also agricultural activity, with urbanization as another significant source. They also found that toxic substances were entering the Great Lakes from diffuse sources such as atmospheric deposition and land drainage, including urban runoff.

The PLUARG report led to renewal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978, and to the signing of a protocol in 1987 amending that agreement. Pollution from non-point sources was a major focus in the protocol, and it identified programs and measures for abatement and reduction of non-point sources of pollution in the Great Lakes System. The PLUARG study commissioned by the IJC, along with the IJC’s prestige and watchdog role, was significant in helping elected officials and the public to understand the severity of the diffuse pollution problem in the Great Lakes.

After the PLUARG studies were completed, Canada and the United States agreed to deal with the issue of high phosphorus loadings from rural non-point sources in Lake Erie. In parallel, the Ontario Land Stewardship Program was introduced by Ontario, and the National Soil Conservation Program was begun. When these both terminated in the early 1990s, the federal Green Plan was introduced to provide funds for soil conservation and diffuse pollution control.

(see “Credible Science and Institutional Commitment, Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution”)

The Walkerton crisis was caused by a series of problems that together led to contamination of the Walkerton water supply:

• The E. coli, contained in manure spread on a farm near one well of the Walkerton water supply system, entered the system through that well.
• The farmer who spread the manure followed proper practices and was not at fault.
• The outbreak would not have occurred if the water had been treated. The water was not treated because the chlorination equipment was being repaired.
• The provincial government’s approvals and monitoring programs were inadequate.
• In addition to lack of training, the operators of the well system had a history of improper operating practices.
• When people began to fall ill, the general manager of the water system withheld from the public health unit critical information about adverse water quality test results. This resulted in delay of a boil-water advisory.
• Budget reductions by the provincial government had led to closure of government laboratory testing services for municipalities, and private laboratories were not required to submit adverse test results to the Ministry of the Environment or to the Medical Officer of Health.
  (see “Walkerton Inquiry”)

A multi-barrier approach, as described by Justice O’Conner of the Walkerton Inquiry, is one that puts in place a series of measures, each independently acting as a barrier to passing water-borne contaminants through the system to consumers, and which achieves a greater overall level of protection than does relying exclusively on a single barrier (e.g., treatment alone or source protection alone). A multi-barrier approach means that a failure in any given barrier will not cause a failure of the entire system. The key components of a multi-barrier approach are source water protection, effective treatment of drinking water, and secure distribution of treated water to consumers.

(see “Walkerton: Lessons and Recommendations”)

Water security can be achieved through various approaches. The best known are supply management and demand management, but an emerging approach is called “soft path.”

• Supply management:The traditional approach. When a water shortage is anticipated, the solution is to develop a new source of supply, normally through either augmenting an existing supply (e.g., raising the height of a dam in order to impound more water) or developing a new supply (e.g., a new dam and reservoir, new wells, a pipeline to a new source [a lake or river], a desalinization plant). However, if people believe that additional supplies will always be found to meet demands, they have little incentive to avoid wasteful water use or to adopt water conservation measures.
• Demand management: While supply management manipulates the natural system to create new sources of supply, demand management seeks to influence human behaviour so that less water is used through methods such as pricing, rebates, restrictions, and education.
• Soft Path:The soft path approach extends demand management. Soft path aims to improve water use efficiency by challenging basic patterns of consumption. While demand management asks “how” to do the same function with less water, the soft path approach asks “why” water is used for a particular function.
  (see “Supply Management”, “Demand Management”, and “Soft Path”)

The virtual water content of a product (a commodity, good or service) refers to the volume of water used in its production. Virtual water “trade” represents the amount of water embedded in traded products. A nation can preserve its domestic water resources by importing water intensive products instead of producing them domestically. By pursuing a virtual water strategy, governments in water-stressed countries can plan to meet food security needs even if their water endowment is limited.

The water footprint concept, however, has a wider application. The water footprint concept does not simply refer to a water volume only, like in the case of the term “virtual water content” of a product. The water footprint is a multidimensional indicator, not only referring to a water volume used, but also making explicit where the water footprint is located, what source of water is used, and when the water is used.

(see “Virtual Water”, “Water Footprints”)

Structural approaches modify the behaviour of the natural system by delaying or redirecting floodwaters. Common methods are upstream dams and storage reservoirs, protective dykes or levees, and deepening or straightening river channels to increase their capacity. Non-structural approaches focus on modifying the behaviour of people. Methods include land-use zoning to restrict or prohibit development in flood-prone areas, relocation of existing flood-prone structures, information and education programs to alert people to the hazard of occupying flood plains, and insurance programs to help people deal with the costs of flood damage.

(see “Flooding”)

Flooding is immediate and apparent. The beginning or end of a drought is more difficult to determine, since droughts are a function of a lack of precipitation, temperature, evaporation, evapotranspiration, capacity of soil to retain moisture, and resilience of flora and fauna in dry conditions. Interpretations are based on causes and effects.

(see “Droughts”)

The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS), established in 1984 is “a federal–provincial–territorial government program that works with community-level river stewardship groups to promote and conserve rivers with outstanding natural, cultural and recreational values. All conservation actions on Canadian Heritage Rivers are voluntary and depend on existing laws and regulations.

(see “Heritage Rivers”)

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) is a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.

          Ideally, IWRM facilitates integration at several levels, including:

1. Integration of various dimensions of water, such as quantity and quality, surface and groundwater, and upstream and downstream.
2. Integration of water considerations with those for terrestrial and other related resources.
3. Integration of water, as part of the environmental system, with aspects related to economic and social systems.
4. Integration of and engagement by stakeholders in a collaborative and participatory manner.

(see “Integrated Water Resource Management”)

Matthews et al. (2007: 350–3) offer six “imperatives” for a new water ethic:

• Meet basic human needs to enhance equity today and for the future
• Safeguard ecosystems by allocating sufficient water resources
• Encourage efficiency and conservation of water resources use
• Establish open and participative decision-making processes
• Respect system complexity and emphasize precaution
• Seek multiple sustainability benefits from water-centred initiatives.

(see “Water Ethics”)

Currently, no court in Canada has ruled on whether Indigenous title can be held on lands beneath water. The Crown will argue that such title cannot be held, with navigable waters being accessible for anyone’s use. The legal test to prove Indigenous title in Canada used in the benchmark 2014 Supreme Court of Canada case to support the Tsilhqoti’in First Nation claim to 1,700 km² of land in British Columbia was developed to deal with claims to land, not water. Furthermore, that test requires Indigenous peoples to prove continuous and exclusive occupation of an area prior to European sovereignty, not an easy task when the disputed area includes open water.

(see “Indigenous Rights to Water in Canada”)

Those supporting export of water to the United States argue that water is just another resource with value and can be exchanged on the open market, Canada has more water than it needs to meet its foreseeable needs, substantial income could be earned from selling water to the US and elsewhere, jobs would be created through the necessary major construction projects such as pipelines, and some diverted water could be sent to regions in Canada facing shortfalls

Those opposing water exports emphasize that the scale or magnitude of the proposed water diversion projects would be much larger than any previous project, creating significant risks and uncertainty.

The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) and Grand Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal were two proposals for diverting water from Canadian river or lake systems southward. However, both were opposed.

Water exports need not take place only via pipelines or major diversions. Other options outside of pipelines or major diversions include:

• Exports between adjacent communities on either side of the Canada–US border
• Movement of water between national and boundary waters.
• Tanker shipment
• Export of water in bottles or similar containers
  (see “Water Exports, Diversions, and Other Options”)

What you can do:

Ten Water Conservation Initiatives:

1. Educate
2. Design communities for conservation
3. Close urban water loop
4. Use rainwater
5. Plan for sustainability
6. Adopt appropriate pricing
7. Link conservation to development
8. Make managing demand part of regular business
9. Stop flushing the future
10. Fix leaks and reduce waste

(see “A Public Policy Matter”)