Islanders watching the Water Act debate
Opinions vary on impact of legislation
A director with the P.E.I. Watershed Alliance is hoping for further clarity to the Prince Edward Island Water Act once regulations are drafted.
The draft Water Act received first reading in the provincial legislature last week and was debated on the floor Wednesday.
“I think the intent of the act is good,” said Dale Cameron. “It will be interesting to see how things go together to enforce it.” Cameron, who is co-ordinator of the Trout River and Mill River watersheds through Trout Unlimited, said he is “reasonably happy” with the draft act. The Watershed Alliance was one of many groups and individuals who made presentations during consultations carried out by the Environmental Advisory Council.
“I thought the consultation process was the best one that government has ever had,” said Cameron, past chairman of the Alliance.
He describes the act as “decent middle ground.”
“If the regulations follow the intent of the act, then I think we’re on the right road,” he said.
The Coalition for the Protection of P.E.I. Water has a lukewarm response to the act as it is drafted.
“Though we do see some very positive additions, we feel it is important to point out some significant gaps within the draft Water Act that are of great concern,” said Catherine O’Brien, chair of the coalition that represents more than 20 groups. They want to see changes to the act before it is proclaimed, including enshrining the right to clean water as a separate provision in the act.
Marie Ann Bowden, with the coalition, proposed the following wording: “The peoples of P.E.I. have the right to affordable water, sufficient in quality and quantity for human and ecosystem sustainability.” She notes this would include the inherent water rights of the Indigenous people of P.E.I. John Clow from Summerside has been critical of environmental practices and enforcement in P.E.I. He is not finding much substance in the act that Environment Minister Robert Mitchell tabled.
“There’s a lot of stuff in there that’s just fluff,” he said.
Clow is critical of what he sees as government inaction on fish kills.
“There seems to be no will in any shape or form to enforce the damn thing, regardless of how it’s written,” he said. National Farmers Union regional director, Douglas Campbell, likes the ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) but is concerned that the act leaves an out for the issue to be revisited.
The coalition also views the fracking ban as good, but fears
“It’s a potatoes, potatoes, potatoes kind of thing. This is where the deep-water well issue came from; it is why we have it. It’s why we’re talking about it, because of the irrigating that has gone on.” Douglas Campbell, regional director, National Farmers Union
subsequent clauses negate the effect.
“We simply cannot allow fracking, and need Section 19 (2) and (3) removed from the Act to fully protect our water,” states Starchild Eliza Knockwood, an Abegweit First Nation member of Don’t Frack P.E.I. and the coalition.
Campbell doesn’t believe the Act is strong enough in regard to dealing with holding ponds for irrigation.
“They didn’t come right out and talk about the holding ponds and the moratorium on the deep-water wells. It’s kind of disappointing, in a sense, they are going to have that in the regulations rather than the act,” he said.
He also feels more consideration needs to be given to protecting the land.
“It’s a potatoes, potatoes, potatoes kind of thing. This is where the deep-water well issue came from; it is why we have it. It’s why we’re talking about it, because of the irrigating that has gone on.”
For its part, and in keeping with a key component of many presentations during the consultation process, the coalition is recommending that the moratorium on high-capacity wells be included in the legislation.