-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Krause & Leslie Taylor
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:14 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] Theme 3: Regional Strategic Planning, Alberta's Water for Life

   **************************************************
          Rosenberg Water Policy E-Discussion
            -- Managing Upland Watersheds --
               July 31 - August 28, 2006
   **************************************************

Introduction to Theme 3 (Final Theme)
Regional Strategic Planning: Alberta's Water for Life
August 21-28, 2006

Guest Moderator: Dr. Lorne Taylor, former Minister of
                 Environment for the Government of
                 Alberta, Canada

Conference Website:
http://snipurl.com/tz4x (short URL)

Introduction ---

During the last week of the Rosenberg Water Policy
E-Discussion we ask you to think about putting
science into action. This week's topic is about
regional strategic planning that involves scientists
and stakeholders, policy-makers and politicians.

As before, we encourage you to share your initial
thoughts BEFORE THIS THURSDAY. The sooner you comment,
the more opportunity others will have to reply at the
end of the week.

This is the last week of discussion. Please honour
this free service with your contribution to the
conversation - about any of the three topics already
discussed.

Background ---

Alberta's Water for Life is an effort, unique and
unprecedented in Canada, to develop a strategic plan
for the management of water resources on a Provincial
basis in Alberta. More about Alberta's Water for Life
program is available here:
http://www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca/

Questions for Participants ---

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Water for
Life? How might it be improved? What are other
provinces, states and regions around the world doing
that could provide a model for improvements in this
strategy? What are the most significant barriers to
implementing these large-area plans over the short
term? The long-term?

How to Participate ---

Please send your comments BEFORE MONDAY, AUGUST 28 to:
mf-ec@mtnforum.org

Your personal and professional opinions are welcome.
If you are having trouble deciding what to contribute
delay no longer! Try an example, a question, a
request, a lesson learned, a promising strategy, a
recommendation, some reference material, a case study,
or just a brief comment. Thank you!

Your messages will not appear immediately on the
e-discussion list, but will be formatted first, then
posted by the e-discussion moderator within 24 hours,
Mon-Fri.

As we mentioned above, this is the last week of
discussion. We encourage you to contribute to this
free conversation, especially if you have not yet
done so already. All comments are welcome!

Amy Krause
Mountain Forum Project Officer
Mountain Culture, The Banff Centre
Amy_krause@banffcentre.ca
(403) 762-6477

Leslie Taylor
Associate Director, Mountain Environment
Mountain Culture, The Banff Centre
Leslie_taylor@banffcentre.ca
(403) 762-6675

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Lorne Taylor
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:23 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] Case Study: Water for Life

Dear Participants,

I have been reading, with great interest, the online
discussion of local water issues as they are affected
by climate change.  The discussion has been informed
and positive.  However, the fundamental weakness in
much of the discussion is the failure to recognize
that although policies may be scientifically valid,
to actually implement policy you must influence the
ultimate policy decision makers.

In the Canadian case and particularly Alberta which
I am most familiar with, these decision makers
continue to be the elected politicians.  The question
remains and needs to be discussed as to how sound
public policy can be introduced and acted on in a
democratic, political process.

Water For Life, Alberta's strategy for a healthy and
sustainable water supply, is an example of
scientifically based public policy that was approved
by the Government of Alberta.  This approval came
only after an extensive public and political process.
The public process is briefly described in the first
pages of the Water For Life document.  If anyone
would like more information on that process I can
provide it.  What is not described is the concurrent
political process.

Public policy, to be successfully implemented, must
be adopted and legislated by the level of government
that has the authority to do so.  The task then
becomes to convince the politicians and their
officials of the value and the necessity of a
particular public policy that will actually result in
action.  It is my opinion as a former cabinet minister
that the nature, values and political mechanisms of
the government must be fully understood if the
political process is to be influenced and changed.
Whether there is agreement with the overall political
agenda of the government is irrelevant. To effect
public policy change it is necessary to work with the
party in power, particularly in a majority situation,
if policy is to be influenced.

Water For Life was accepted by the Alberta government
because, not only was the public process thorough,
but the political mechanisms to be successful were
well understood and acted on.  As a result, Alberta
has a water strategy that is not only politically
acceptable but will, as it is implemented, lead to a
long term, sustainable water supply.

Questions:

1.  Is there agreement that to establish and implement
    public policy the political process must be
    recognized, understood and worked within?

2.  Is Water For Life a comprehensive plan? What are
    its weaknesses?

3.  Is there any value in recognizing that science
    can only provide part of the solution to public
    policy in regard to water issues?

4.  Although multilateral discussions may be ideal it
    seems to me that when it is very difficult to get
    agreement between Alberta and other provinces on
    water issues it may be best to develop positive
    actions at a local jurisdictional level.  Is this
    the best approach to water issues?

Lorne Taylor, PhD.

[Moderator's Note: More information about Alberta's
Water for Life is available here:
http://www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca/]

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Weir
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:24 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Having quickly read the Water for Life document and
having much experience globally addressing such issues
I believe it is a positive first step. When I was a
new graduate I was given the opportunity to do some
incredible hydrogeology in the Sultanate of Oman.
There I quickly realized that one cannot separate (at
any level) water issues from the political process.
It has since been hammered home in other
jurisdictions such as Australia, southern Africa and
the United States.

As I am now doing considerable work in Ontario and
in British Columbia it is my view that the Alberta
government can with such initiatives become a world
leader in water resource management issues by
following a number of key principles:

1. Quantify and Qualify all the water resources in
   the province. What I mean is that all surface
   water bodies and aquifers need to be assessed with
   the determination of their vulnerability to use or
   contamination. Then making some hard decisions on
   what is appropriate activity in an area.

2. Involve the public in the decision making process.
   I seen it too many times when the public has been
   shut out of the process the costs of conducting a
   project escalate exponentially as it invariably
   becomes a drawn out legal and political battle.

3. Plan and Act locally. This is critical as the
   local stakeholders will feel that they are a part
   of the system and their needs are being met.

Donald V. Weir,

Sr. Environmental Geologist, Hydrogeologist
Amberg Corporation
Suite 604,
10025-106 Street
Edmonton, AB
T5J 1G4
Canada

Ph. +1 (780) 990-0911
Fax: +1 (780) 988-8876
Cell: +1 (780) 886-2453
email: dweir@amberg.ca
Web: http://www.amberg.ca/

Environmental & Regulatory Consultants

Board member MTBAccess
web: http://www.mtbaccess.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Krause
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:47 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Hello Everyone,

Just a quick reminder that there was a message
contributed by Danielle Droitsch during Week 1 of the
discussion that directly addressed Alberta's Water for
Life strategy. http://snipurl.com/vb9k

Ms. Droitsch was particularly interested in the
challenges of a "first-in-time, first-in-right"
system that, in Alberta for example, allows this
province 50% of the natural flow of eastward-running
water regardless of the total natural flow or timing
of that flow.

She was also interested in learning more about the
concept of "shared governance" as outlined by the
Water for Life strategy and how the government would
take leadership.

Finally she wondered where resources for shared
governance and Water for Life activities would come
from - specifically for planning, councils, research,
and tool development.

Refer to the full message here:
http://snipurl.com/vb9k

Do not forget that Dr. Lorne Taylor - our guest
moderator - emphasized the importance of the
political process in implementing public policy.
Your comments on his thoughts, as well as Ms.
Droitsch’s are welcome!

Amy Krause.

-------------------------------------
Amy Krause, Mountain Forum Officer
The Banff Centre, Mountain Culture
107 Tunnel Mountain Drive
Box 1020, Banff Alberta Canada T1L 1H5
p: 1-403-762-6477 f: 1-403-762-6277
amy_krause@banffcentre.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Osti Netra Prasad
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Dear Mr. Wier

I am Netra Prasad Osti, working under Nepal
Agricultural Research council (NARC), particularly in
animal nutrition and agroforestry. I would like to add
some solution for biological system from physical
scientists. What we face problems are when dry season
commenced plant get harder in their leaves. Especially
plant cell wall component will get much then cell
content. Animals easily utilize cell content but
difficult to utilize cell wall components like
hemicelluloses, lignin and lignocelluloses complex.
These problems are very common in mountainous areas,
especially in winter and dry seasons. Due to this
scarcity animal production goes down to negligible.
And I would like to thanks for your points like
surface water assessment, community participation and
stakeholders. If you and your colleagues also think
these problems in project formulation I would be very
appreciated to you and concern agencies.

Netra Prasad Osti
Senior Scientist
Animal Nutrition Division (NARC)
P.O. Box 1950, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: 977 1 4285682/9841547746
Fax: 977 1 5521197
Email: n_osti@yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Babina Kharel
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:36 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Hello Everyone,

After making a thorough review of the project document
I have few brief comments to share on the forum.
Alberta water for life is a wonderful effort for water
sustainability in the region thereby ensuring the
sustained ecosystem.

*  The major strength I would like to quote about the
   project is its attempt of inclusiveness. The
   Albertan community being included in the strategy
   making process is in it self a strength of the
   project.

*  Access to sufficient water is not just a problem
   but ensuring safe quality is rather more important.
   Access to water both in terms of quality and
   quantity is the real indicator of better quality
   of life. Water for life has prioritized both the
   parameters.

*  The long term plan of the project involves the use
   of water for economic development. That’s a great
   idea. I would also suggest to emphasize and
   discover the prospects of community based
   electrification within Alberta. The electricity
   generation can provide huge economic returns.

*  Informing the community and improving their access
   to services is what I think is sustainable
   development so hats off to this project which has
   been adopting an approach as such. The partnership
   model and governance mechanism is also very sound
   and accountable.

Well as for sharing the experiences from Nepal, I
would like to keep forward the concept of Community
Based Rural electrification (CBRE). The CBRE model is
a government-community partnership model where the
investment for operation is 80/20 (20, community;
80, government) This sort of project being
implemented in rural Nepal has provided access to
electricity in community. Community unifications under
this project has also brought them together and
motivated them for adoption of other economic
activities through garnering of revolving funds.
Thus water as the precursor, there are immense scope
of return leading to community development.

It was really very exciting having series of
discussions on different crucial issues. There were
so many things to learn from the conference.

Best Regards,

Babina Kharel

babinakharel540@hotmail.com
M.Sc Environmnetal Management
Kathmandu, Nepal

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Taylor, Guest Moderator
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:50 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Babina Kharel, Water for Life

Hello Babina: Thank you for your comments on Water
for Life. We designed the project to be inclusive but
it took some work to build trust and get everyone
involved, particularly the native groups.

In Alberta it does not appear to be currently
feasible to do small hydro projects because of the
economics of small hydro projects. Alberta has an
abundance of cheap coal so over 60% of our
electricity is generated from that source. The
government recently accepted new emission standards
which will substantially reduce emissions. As well
they have invested significant sums in clean coal
with other partners and hope to have a demonstration
plant operating in 2007. This plant is designed to
show that you can produce electricity from coal with
zero emissions. If you have any further questions or
comments I would be pleased to reply.

Lorne Taylor Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:17 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Hi Danielle:

I wish to respond to some of your ideas around the
Water for Life strategy.

"First in time" - this has traditionally been an
important issue particularly in rural Alberta. It is
designed to protect rural Albertans from the ever
increasing water demands of rapidly expanding urban
areas and is a long standing principle of water
rights. This issue was discussed during the public
process, however there is no willingness on behalf of
the holders of the right for any changes that would
alter their position. As a result governments are not
interested in investigating the possibilities because
of the political reality. It is impossible to do water
policy outside this reality. The 50% issue is a signed
agreement with Saskatchewan, our neighbouring
jurisdiction. Even in 2001 one of the driest years on
record Alberta still passed on well over 50% because
of the time run off occurs and the fact that Alberta
does not have adequate storage facilities. As a
minister I suggested, in the press, that in the future
we would hope to pass on only what the agreement
required and this raised a political storm as Sask.
has an economy based on more than the 50% being
passed to them.

The shared governance concept is an interesting
principle. As part of the water strategy we created a
provincial water council as well as basin and
tributary councils. These groups represent the broad
spectrum of the public. The local councils would make
recommendations to the provincial council which in
turn would make recommendations to the government.
The elected officials would still have the right to
approve policy as it is their responsibility to be
the policy makers as they are elected by the general
public. This is why it is necessary to understand the
political process if public policy is to be
influenced for the better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Danielle Droitsch, Bow Riverkeeper
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:33 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Lorne Taylor, Water for Life

NOTE: THERE IS A JPEG THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS FILE.

Hi Lorne,

First off, thanks for your leadership in getting
Alberta's Water for Life Strategy adopted. This was a
proactive step and has the potential to become a model
for addressing key watershed issues in other
jurisdictions.

Agreed - the first-in-time first-in-right principle
is firmly entrenched in Alberta law. However, I
believe there are some opportunities for us to talk
about how and when license holders use their water.
Licenses are often bulk annual volumes and do not
think about the day to day management of our rivers.
What happens to our rivers on a daily basis is where
the rubber meets the road when it comes to either
environmental protection or reliable water supply.

On the Bow River, for example, a series of water
management decisions are made every day such as how
our hydroelectric dams are operated and how much
water is diverted for irrigation. The decision one
water manager takes on a given day (or week) has an
impact on the next water user. For example, a
hydrodam operator's decision to hold back water into
a reservoir affects the amount of water available to
a downstream user. What if we looked at how this
system operates and see what opportunities there
would be to better manage this water? Adding to the
complexity is the wide range of variability as to the
amount of water that is coming down the river in a
given year. We are not managing our rivers based on
this variability and probably need to do more of this
in the future. Further uncertainty rests with the
probability and impact of drought and long-term
impacts of global climate change.

So, given our system of first-in-time first-in-right,
what options are available to us to better manage
water in the future? How can we assure a reliable
water supply for rural communities - a stated outcome
of the Water for Life Strategy. And are there
opportunities to protect river flows for the
environment - another stated outcome of the Strategy?
I am just challenging us to think beyond licenses as
our only method of managing water.

As for apportionment issue, I would challenge us to
think beyond the current simple apportionment
agreement requiring a passage of 50 percent of the
water to Saskatchewan. In 2001, we exceeded the 50
percent apportionment but not by very much (see
attached graph from Alberta Environment). For me, the
question is not whether the number should be 50
percent, or 40 percent, or even 60 percent. While
simple apportionment agreements made sense decades
ago, they may not be enough to deal with the
allocation of water between our prairie provinces in
the future. It is very possible that drought or
decreased water flows due to global climate change
will create conflict between our prairie provinces.
I think we could be proactive and design a management
plan that acknowledges apportionment agreements only
go so far as to address these issues.

Finally, I am very pleased with the shared governance
approach you helped to instil into the Water for Life
Strategy. In fact, I play an active role on one of the
Alberta Water Council subcommittees and on the
regional Bow River Watershed Council. Based on my
experience, I think that shared governance will be
most successful if it encompasses collaborative
decision-making and interest-based negotiation.
Collaborative decision-making differs from the "old
school" approach to writing watershed plans that
typically sit on a shelf unimplemented. Rather,
collaborative decision-making is geared toward
gaining actual commitments from participants with
their blessing. I'd like to think this will be a part
of the shared governance strategy in Alberta.

Again, thank you for your leadership. I think this is
an exciting time in Alberta for trying to address
some of our key challenges and the Water for Life
Strategy will help us confront these as we go into
the future.

Sincerely,

Danielle Droitsch

Danielle Droitsch
Bow Riverkeeper
P.O. Box 3120
Banff, Alberta
CANADA T1L 1C7

Tel. 403.762.0591
Fax. 403.762.0351

http://www.bowriverkeeper.org

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Taylor, Guest Moderator
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Lorne Taylor, Water for Life

Hi Danielle: Thanks for your comments. I agree there
is an opportunity to discuss with rural water users
about when they use their water. However it will need
to be done in an acceptable and transparent manner. I
can assure that first in right is a very sensitive
issue with major political ramifications. That does
not mean we should not talk about it. In fact a format
I developed for the discussion around oil and water
might work. A report on this issue was delivered to me
just as I was leaving politics and there were clear
steps to be taken. These were perhaps not as a quick
action as I would like to have seen but it is a start.
I agree with your comments about the Bow River but I
am not sure Trans Alta would be interested in such a
discussion. They probably should be approached. This
would be an excellent project for the provincial water
council.

I think there are a number of opportunities to manage
water in the future. The knowledge base of both
groundwater and surface water needs to be
substantially expanded. How do we manage without
having an adequate knowledge. To develop this the
government needs to spend a considerable amount of
money on research.

Another opportunity is around conservation. As part
of the water strategy Alberta Environment was to
undertake an accurate cost analysis of delivering
water to consumers. It was to be completed by 2007.
My expectation is we do not pay close to the actual
cost for water. If this proves to be true then
Albertans will have a decision to make about paying
the correct amount for their water. This may mean a
substantial increase to the consumer. However we do
know that price will drive conservation. It will be
interesting to see how this turns out. Finally it is
my position that along with other conservation
measures we must conserve more of the spring runoff.
This can only be done through the construction of
more water storage facilities preferably off stream.

In regards to apportionment there is little [no]
political will to reopen the issue. Perhaps with the
right kind of policy process a discussion may be
opened, but I do not hold much hope in the near term.

I agree with your comments on collaborative decision
making. The water strategy was designed with this
model in mind.

Lorne Taylor Ph. D.

From: L. Taylor
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:04 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Hi Don: The points you make are just the points the
water strategy makes and need to be reemphasized. The
government is spending a great deal of money on
healthy drinking water but needs to be encouraged to
spend more on water research. Hopefully the provincial
water council can help them move in this direction.

Lorne Taylor Ph. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Krause
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Dear Lorne,

Thank you for taking such an active role in the
discussions so far. Before the close of this topic I
have a few questions as an e-discussion participant.

The Water for Life document (which is an interesting
and quick read!) states that the Alberta Government
will be assisted by three types of partnerships in
stewarding Alberta's water resources.

1. Provincial Water Advisory Council
2. Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils
3. Watershed Stewardship Groups

To clarify for myself and those who haven't read it:

As I understand it, Watershed Stewardship Groups are
the volunteer-driven, community-based, grassroots
organizations with which many of us are familiar.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Provincial
Water Advisory Council (1) will oversee the
implementation of Water for Life. This includes
conducting research, reporting on current issues,
consulting with Albertans, and ultimately providing
policy advice to the government.

Finally, the Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils
- mostly yet to be created - will "lead in watershed
planning, develop best management practices, foster
stewardship activities, report on the state of the
watershed, and educate users of the water resource."
These councils will not have a direct reporting
relationship with the Advisory Council.

My questions are:

1. How will participants of the Provincial Water
   Advisory Council be recruited or chosen? Presumably
   the members of the Water Advisory Council will need
   to have the political expertise you mentioned early
   this week to effectively influence policy?

2. If the Policy Advisory Council's job is to suggest
   policy, how will the Council be funded?

3. How will the volunteer Watershed Planning and
   Advisory Councils fund "watershed planning... best
   management practices... stewardship activities...
   report[ing] on the state of the watershed, and
   educat[ing] users." If these are volunteer councils,
   how do we ensure this important work gets done?
   Has there been strategic planning around
   diversifying sources of financial support for the
   eight suggested Watershed Planning and Advisory
   Councils?

Thank you so much, Lorne. I know that all Albertans
are responsible for answering these questions, but
wondered if you might have some insight.

Best regards,

Amy.

-------------------------------------
Amy Krause, Mountain Forum Officer
The Banff Centre, Mountain Culture
107 Tunnel Mountain Drive
Box 1020, Banff Alberta Canada T1L 1H5
p: 1-403-762-6477 f: 1-403-762-6277
amy_krause@banffcentre.ca
 

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Taylor
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Mountain Forum - E-conference
Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Water for Life

Hi Amy: The first water council was selected by me as
the minister on the advice of the various groups
represented. The department wanted a wide and
representative group. Once that was decided the
various groups were approached and asked to name a
representative. Once the list was finalized I took it
to cabinet and it was approved through an Order in
Council. As the minister I could have made the
appointments myself but I wanted the Council to have
maximum credibility thus the O.C. This why it is very
important to understand the political process you are
working in. All the politically important boards are
appointed thru O.C.s. It means cabinet has approved
every name on a board.

The reappointments would have to go through cabinet
after some kind of selection procedure yet to be
determined.

Only a sophisticated council, one that understands
the values and roles of the government will be
effective. My position continues to be that
politicians are elected to represent the people and
MUST HAVE the final say on any policy decision.

2 The council is funded as part of the Department of
Environment's budget and should continue to be so.
The advisory councils should also have seed funding
from Environment as I did with the Bow River Basin
Council.

3 When I was the minister, Environment was prepared
to advise and help groups start and provide some
initial funding. I assume this is still the case. It
would be recommended that the groups be not for
profit so they can raise money from other sources as
the Bow River Council has done. As far as I could
make out this was the most well run and effective
council around. They can be a model for other
councils and their director was in the past very
helpful in providing advise.

To make sure the appropriate work gets done both the
department and the provincial council would provide
advice and encouragement.

Thank you for your questions please contact me again
if you need further clarification.

Lorne Taylor P.H.D.