river basin planning

3 downloads 0 Views 1007KB Size Report
Sep 9, 1981 - and Chaney, 1982). Since the Ontario Conservation ... Where population densities are lon or the probleros are less involved, it may be rnore ...
This article was downloaded by: [91.188.39.232] On: 24 March 2014, At: 13:54 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

RIVER BASIN PLANNING: PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES Bruce Mitchell Published online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Bruce Mitchell (1983) RIVER BASIN PLANNING: PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES , Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 8:1, 1-21, DOI: 10.4296/cwrj0801001 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4296/cwrj0801001

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Canadian Water Resources Journal

Vol. 8, No. 1,

1983

RIVER BASIN PLANNING: PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Dy

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Bruce

Mitchelll

ABSTMCT: River basin planning is falling into disrepute because of a frequent failure to make the transition from pl,anning to implementation. Four reasons have contributed to this problem. First, it appears that comprehensive plans may not be required for all basins. Second, adequate institutional arrangements do not exist to facilitafe coordination of management functions aud activities during both planning and implementation. Third, Iengthy periods of rime, needed to facilitate public participation and accountability, are used during planning. Fourth, recommendations often are too numerous, ambiguous or abstract to help implementing agencies. Examples of these problems are presented from river basin rnanagement experiences across Canada. Their implications are reviewed for the ongoing development of watershed plans by each of the thirty-nine Ontario Conservation Authorities.

La planification des eaux par bassins versants tombe en discr6di.t h cause du d6faut fr6quenl de passer de 1a planification h 1a r6alisation. Quatre raisons ont contrl'-tru6 E causer ce problErne. Tout dtabord il sernble qurun plan g1oba1 pourrait ne pas 6tre requis pour chaque bassin. En deuxiEme 1ieu, i-l nrexiste pas de disposition institutionnelle ad6quate pour faciliter 1a coordination des fonctions de gestion et des activit6s, durant 1a planifacation et durant 1a r6alisation. En troisiame lieu, de longues p6riodes de temps sont utilis6es pendant la planification pour faciliter la participation du public et sa responsabj.lisation. Enf:i.n, les reconmandations sont souvent trop nombreuses, ambigues ou abstraites pour aider 1es agences de r6alisation. Des exemples de ces problEmes, tir6s dtexp6rience de gestion de bassins verRESUME:

1

lPiofessor, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontari.o

2

sants a travers le Canada' sont pr6sent6s' Lrauteur passe enplans reveue leurs cons6guences sur 1e d6veloppement en cours des dtarn6nagement de bassin Pour chacune des trente-neuf Agences de Conservati-on de l tontario.

INTRODUCTlON

River basin planning appears to be falling into disrepute. of the rnid 1960ts when comprehensive, integrated or unified river basin nanagement was prornoted in Canada as a means to overcoroe narrow perspectives on planning, management and problem-solving, the concept increasingly has come to receive criticism or to be set aside in favour of alternative approaches (Environment Canada, 1981; O'Riordan, 1981). An important reason for this fall from grace has been Ehe frequent failure to make the Eransition frou planning to implementation. This problem has been recognized for rnany years. Indeed, as E.K. Hampson (1945, 82) rernarked during the Conference on River Valley DevelopmenE in Southern OnEario held at London in October 1944, 'rlt \till do no harm to observe Ehat the completion of a survey and the publication of a report concerning it is of itself \ilorthlessrt. In other words, the generation of river basin or watershed plans in ieself does not normally resolve problems. Furthermore, as Franklin Cardy (1981, 75), Director of the Vlater Resources Branch in New Brunswick has noted, in river basin planning across Canada it too often has been the situation that "the process was, in effect, to be the producL". These concerns deserve attention, especially since each Conservation Authority in Ontario was directed in 1979 by the Province of Ontario to prepare a watershed plan.

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

From the heady days

'Scepticisrn about the product of river basin planning is held by nany in both Canada and the United SEates. O'Riordan (1981, 16-17), Director of Planning for Ehe l"linistry of Environment in Bricish Columbia, has analyzed river basin planning experiences, especially the one in the Okanagan Va1ley. He voiced concern that such sLudiestttake a long time to complete, and are ofren expensive in terms of their product. In the past they have produced extensive lists of recommendaEions, only a sma1l proportion of which have been implemented" (1981, 16). The Honourable Alan W. Pope (f98f, 1f), ontario Minister of Narural Resources, addressing a symposiurn on river basin management in October 1981, expressed a similar view when commenting thaE:

...perhaps the grealest challenge facing river basin is developing and presenEing plans in such a manner thaE Ehe soluEions Ehey are designed to achieve are in facL achieved. Probably the mosE severe criticism of basin planning is that plans rarely get implemented. management,

3

Such reservations about river basin managemenr also have been expressed in the United States (tloggan, 1974; Ga1lovay, 1982)

. wengert ( 1981, 9) has written

Ehat:

As a major governing concept in water policy, integrated river basin developrnent is in trouble... At the professional and political level, the concept is being fragmenEed as nore and more research and development is being put into specific issues of rrater control and managemenE with increasing attention once again focused on site specific problems and solutions and analytic specialization.

In an evaluation of the six river basin comnissions in the United States, the General Accounting Office (198f) also was pessimistic. Although it accepted the concept of river basin planning as sound, the General AccounLing Office concluded Ehat: of this planning is done lrithout direct. involvement by river basin commissions. Federal and State agencies do noE view the comnissions as having authority to prepare coordinated plans or establish priorities which supercede those of existing agencies and have no co*itment to conform to comrnission agreements (GAO, 1981, ii).

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Much

GAO report provided the rationale for Executive Order 12319 signed by President Reagan on September 9, 1981 which terminated the activities of the six river basin cosmissions originally established by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (Frisch and Chaney, 1982).

This

Since the Ontario Conservation Authorities have been given the task of developing watershed p1ans, it is appropriate to examine the reasons underlying the discontent with river basin planning. Having identified Ehe sources of dissatisfaction, it then is possible to consider nays Lo alleviate or avoid them. The rernainder of this paper focuses upon the problems of river basin planning, as well as upon alternative ways of resolving them. WEAKNESS

OF RIVER BASIN PLANNING

As noted previously, a major source of disiltusionment with river basin planning has been a difficulty in translating the plan into action. Expectat.ions have been high while results often have been disappointingly low. A variety of reasons may be identified as contributing to rhis fundamental weakness.

4

Need

for a Comprehensive

Plan?

A starting point is to question whether a comprehensive plan is required in every watershed (Uitchell, 1980, 92). For example, in reviewing the basin planning exercise for the St. John River in New Brunswick, Cardy (1981, 14-75) argued that it was questionable whet.her a comprehensive planning study was necessary to solve some point source polluLion problems.

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

He stated that the single cofi[non concern in the basin was water pollution and the need to eradicate it. Furthermore, the water pollution rras generaEed primarily frorn a few large and readily identified industrial plants in both Maine and New Brunswick. The pollution came mainly from pulp miIl effluent and potato wastes. Thus, in his view, the situation "...was noE what had to be done, but only how to get it done, and how perfect iE should be" ( l98l , 75).

Nevertheless, the planning study did not focus only upon the problen of pollution. Instead, attention was diffused over Lhe whole range of basin systems during the course of the sEudy from l97O to 1974. The legacy of the planning study is an interim reporE, a comprehensive plan in three volumes plus a sucrnary, and some 30 specialist reports prepared and published berween 1972 and 1976. Despite alI of this activity, some aspects such as public water supply and groundwater were hardly addressed. Despite the relatively broad-based planning study, and the three volume final plan, Cardy (1981, 75) concluded rhaE "the problem sEill rernained, that, other than pollution, there was not a problem". This type of assessment raises a question about the wisdom of preparing a watershed plan for every basin, as Ehe ConservaEion Authorities have been asked Eo do. In contrast, a study conducted from 1978 to 1980 of the English-!'labigoon river sysEen in northwestern Ontario focussed sharply on the water quality issues associated with mercury contamination from a pulp and paper operaEion at. Dryden. The planning sEudy was narrowly conceived and can in no way be considered a comprehensive watershed plan. The contrast betlreen the SE. John and English-l^labigoon experiences is scriking.

I subnit that it is unreasonable to assune Ehat a plan is needed in every basin. Where the population density is high, and/or Lhe problems are numerous and complex, watershed plans with aIl the tirne and expense involved may be appropriate. Where population densities are lon or the probleros are less involved, it may be rnore appropriate to concentrate on either sife-specific issues or else upon very broad-brush strategic overviews. comprehensive watershed

5

The appropriate course of action will only become apparent aIter careful pre-planning through which the naLure of the problem(s) is assessed in general terms before any commiEment is made for a detailed basin-wide study. Unfortunately, pre-planning often is not done we11. Various line agencies asked to contribute may not take the exercise seriously, or use it to promote a project for which funding could not be obtained through normal procedures. In either case, pre-planning is not likely to be helpful. Nevertheless, using pre-planning as a mechanism to determine the appropriateness of initiating watershed plans seems more sensible than some criteria of administrative standardization or convenience.

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

The Nature

of

Recomnendations

A second aspect which has inhibited the transition from planning to implementation has been the nature of the reconnnendations contained in river basin planning reports, Idea1ly, a planning recommendation should identify what needs to be done, what the cost wilt be, whaE will be gained - or forfeited if it is not done - and who should do it (EnvironmenE Canada, 1981, 27). To be useful, rhe recornmendations should be few in nurnber, and the relative importance of each should be indicated. Furthermore, to facilitate their i.mplementation, the recommendations should emerge from a process in which the planning team has consulted closely with the implernenting agencies prior to the publication of the report. Unfortunately, these ideal characteristics are not usually met. Planning study recommendations frequently have been criticized by those charged with implementing them for being too numerous (Environment Canada, 1981,2S). To illustrate, the number of recornmendations in some of the joint federal-provincial basin planning studies completed during the 1970's was as follows: Souris 37; Okanagart, 451' Qu'Appe1le, 64; and Saint John, lI5. Such large numbers of recommendaEions accompanied wirh no sense of priority almost ensure major problems in coordination during implementaEion, especially if the recommendations become the responsibiliry of existing line agencies raEher than one organization wirh the power to implemenE the recommendations in a systematic nunner.

Another criticism has been that recommendations are often phrased in general, vague or arnbiguous terms, most Iikely the result of the planning team trying to make them be all things to all people. As an example, some of the recommendatirlns of one river basin plan have been characterized as being ttoo confused or theoretical to be handled'r, while other were "jusl sEatements of fact, rather than recornmendaLions'r (Cardy, 19gl , 14).

o

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

A related concern is that too many recommendations become calls for further sEudy and research, rather than specifying action which is required" While ir is admirable for watershed planning teams to recognize their imperfect understanding of a river basin system, ca1ls for more research do little to help the implementing agency in getting on with irs task. Indeed, the implementation phase will always proceed in the fact of risk and uncertainty, as it usually is impractical to wait for complete information and total understanding before taking decisions. As Hare (1974,26) has cautioned, analysts Lend to be committed to long tine scales, to certainEy, and to deferring action until understanding has been gained. In contrast, the policy maker does not have such luxury, and deals r,rith situaEions in which "the concrete is preferred to the abstracE, the sinple to the complex... Action must proceed when the tine is ripe, and it is rarely ripe twice'r. A review of river basin planning recomnendations does suggest that the way in which recommendations are PresenEed may have a major bearing on whether they ever are implemented. As a result, it seems reasonable to suggest thar if there is to be any error in watershed planning studies, the error should be in the direction of fewer rather than nore recommendations, and in more simple rather than more complex recommendations. In addition, the relative significance of recommendations should be specified, as well as which organization is to be responsible for them. A11 of these guidelines will bear fruit only if the study Leam consults with the implementing agencies as the recommendat.ions are being deve loped

.

The Time Required for River Basin SEudies and ImplenentaLion

' Even if waLershed recormnendations contain the ideal characteristics outlined above, there is a danger thaL they will have little impact if the period of time for planning becomes too long. The planning phase in basin studies usually has varied from three Lo five years. In that regard, the llonourable Alan W. Pope ( 1981, 8) has commented Ehat: Basin planning, in the past, typically has taken up to five years... This is much too long from many points of view. Over such a lengthy time there are ofEen changes in planning staff as well as rnunicipal goveroments and even provincial

or the federal

governments.

that period for planning is added to the usual pause between planning and implementation, and then the implementation phase extending from five to l0 years, the concern over length of time for basin exercises can be appreciated (tab1e 1). A reasonable

When

7

question is whether the time period can be reduced in any way. If iE can not be compressed, there is a danger rhat residents in the watershed will not supporL such exercises on the belief Ehat they arettnever-ending'r and,/or appear to provide few tangible benefits.

Tab

Ie I Federal-Provincial Joint River Basin

Plenliry

River Basin Okanagan

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

(British S

Implementation 6- 198 1

1969-r97 4

197

L969-197

2

L974-1984

-r97

5

Columbia)

QurAppe 1l-e (

Management Experiences

askatchewan-Mani toba)

Saint

John (New Brunswick)

1969

No formal ion

imp lemen ta t

agreement

Souri (

s

r97 4-197 8

Saska r chewan-Mani toba)

Shubenacad ie-S tewiacke

(Nova Scotia)

L977 -1981

Under negot iat ion Under

negotiation

Several opporruniries may exist to shorten the planning sEage. A first might be to reduce the tirne horizon for the planning studies, which usually cover a 30 to 40 year time f,rame. It can be argued that substantial time and effort is needed to predict possible patterns of population change and economic acLivity, 20, 30 or 40 years in the future which are unlikely to occur anyway because of changes in technology, social priorities and policies. Thus, if the planning studies were given 15 year time horizons, with a concern for only general patEerns in the more distant future, time savings for dat.a collection and analysis might be realized. This approach also would require a greater conmitment to update planning studies since the shorter time horizon would emphasi.ze their out-datedness as Ehe years went by. A commitment to updaCing would be an improvement to the current practice in which plans are often not brought up to date at regular intervals to reflect changing conditions.

A second opportunity to cut the time needed for planning is by managernenE control to ensure that undue effort is not given to

8

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

data collection and analysis which perhaps serves the needs of line agencies more than the needs of the watershed study. There is always the danger that line agencies will view the funds for a basin study as a source which they can tap to initiate or continue work of interest to the agency. Since the planning team is oflen dependent on the specialists in the line agencies for advice as to krhat work in a given area is required, there may be no one with che expertise or authority to challenge Ehe recommendations for sLudy by the line agencies. A third aspect offers the possibility of condensing the length of the entire process from planning Eo irnplementation. It may not always be necessary to waiE until after the completion of the planning phase to begin implernentation. There may be some courses of acEion which most people can agree upon from nearly the outset and which would have minimal environmental and social impacts. In such situaEions it might be appropriate to consider whether such actions could be initiated during the period of the planning study itself. Such an approach would have the additional benefits of providing tangible evidence of action and of helping to maintain public support for the exercise during the planning phase

.

The three points described previously - (I) reduction of time horizons, (2) greater control over data collection and analysis, (3) early implementation of selected actions - may help to reduce the period of Eime required for waEershed planning and management, a period of tirne which many observers have crilicized as being too long. On che other hand, reduction in the amount of time may create difficulties for other imporLanE considerations. Two of the mosE important such considerations are public participation and accountability.

Public Participation Comprehensive river basin management exercises have incorporated fhe concept of public participation frorn the outset, and have represented some of the pioneer experiences with public participation in resource management within Canada. If the public can be divided into "activeil and 'rinactiverr segments, it usually has been the rractiverr public which has been drawn most effectively into the planning and implemenEation process. The active public represenEs that segment which is affiliated wifh the well-organized articulate interesE groups which make Eheir presence and viewpoints known in any such exercise. They make their views known whether or not there is a formal oublic participation exercise.

Most cf the commonly used mechanisms for public part.icipation - public hearings, advisory groups, task forces -

9

are best suited ro individuals and groups accustomed to funcEioning as representatives of specific interests in an adversary system. Ln contrasE, the "inactive" public, or that segmenE which might be designated as rhe silent majority, often is uncomfortable with such procedures and frequently is not heard. It probably is not unfair to suggest that public participation programs have not been tremendously successful in involving the inact.ive public. For pragmatic reasons, r^tater managers have preferred an interest-based model for public participation on the belief that "it is irnpossible to involve all of the public all of the tine'r (Pent1and,1981,90). As a check as to whether the views and suggestions offered by interesE-based advisory groups approximate broader public opinion in a watershed, plannirg teams have used surveys, newspaper questionnaires , and pub Iic meetings.

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Whether dealing with the "active" or "inactive" public, an importanE point arises concerning the length of time required for

planning and implemenEation. Most of the rnechanisms for public participation normally require a lengthy period of time. That is, public participation programs normally require sufficient time to allow: (1) technical studies to get sEarted, (2) the technical results to be "translated'r into lay terms and to be disseminated to the public, (3) the public to submit Eheir views and reactions to the planners, and, (4) the public and the planners to exchange views while options are reduced and sharpened. In a wat.ershed study, it is difficult to accomplish all of this consultation in less than several years. I'lore comfortably, three Eo four years are required. Ilowever, concern has been expressed about the lengthy period of time required for planning. If the time period is a problern and if it is desirable to reduce it, the implications are tremendous for public participation. Thar is, if public participation in a river basin context normally requires three to four years, then the accumulated experience with various mechanisms gained during rhe 1970's will be of little value if the necessary amount of time for them will not be available in the future. An exciting and challenging task will be to develop mechanisms which do not require as much time as those which have been relied upon in the past. The alternative will be to cut back substantial ly on public participation.

Accountability According [o the l,,lorld Book Dictionary (Vol. I , 1975, 15), to be accountable re"n@ory reason for, ro explain, or to be responsible or answerable for. With reference to river basin planning, the Honourable Alan I'1, Pope (1981, 8) has stated that "when the time frame is long, accountability ro

10

produce results is reduced". This concern raises the issue of accountabiliry, both for Conservation Authorifies in general (Powe11, 1981,55,59) and for watershed planning in particular' In fact, accountability is an aspect which has been a significant concern for special district organizations in natural resource management for many years (Hanson, 1965, 9). One reason

for the prolonged period for the planning

and

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

implementation phases is accountability. There usually is a pause of as much as two years betvteen the conclusion of the planning phase and Lhe beginning of rhe implemenEation phase. This time is used by elected and Eechnical officials at various levels of government to examiae, discuss, and debate the nature and costs

of, recommendaEions contained in the watershed plan. In a system in which elected officials are accountable Eo the taxpayers for their decisions, time is required for such review and assessment. Indeed, most taxpayers would be upset if Ehey believed thaL their elected representatives did not carefully examine alternative strategies before committing funds. Unfortunat.ely, such a Process does take time and can lead. to loss of momenLum built up during the planning phase.

This situaEion sEresses the exisEence of a trade-off which must be recognized and appreciaEed (Environmenc Canada, 1981, 30). To facilitate examination of alternatives and costs in a p1an, time is needed following the planning phase. Ilowever, this pause can create difficulties. Study Eeam personnel may nove to oEher positions and be unavailable during the review to explain or elaborate points in the plan. Elected officials may change, causing further delay as the newly elecEed representatives familiarize themselves with rhe issues and Ehe plan. Events may overLake the plan, as new problems begin Eo emerge and cost estimates become out of daEe. Public enthusiasm, developed and nurtured during public participarion programs, may wane as the public sees no decisions being taken or action iniriated. Thus, accountabilily does not come wifhout a cost. To provide for accountability, the time period for waEershed planning, and especially between planning and implementation phases, will be prolonged and extended. Any reduction in the period of time may come at. the expense of reduced accountability. The disadvantages of a substantial pause prior to implementation may have to be accepEed due to other advantages associated wiEh the decision process in a democratic society. What are the implications of the accountability issue for the Conservation Authorities and the watershed plans? It often is argued that the Conservation Authoriries, using "grass roots'l participation and a rrbottom-up" raLher than 'rtop downrr decision process, are responsive and accountable to the needs and desires

11

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

of watershed residents. Much is made of the fact that each municipaliry is a member, and has a representaLive on. Ehe Conservati.on AuLhority. Yet it also is known that these members f,requently are non-elected representatives from the 1.oca1 communities, and that they often do not report back t.o their municipal councils on a regular basis, if at all. Indeed, in one study it was discovered that of the general members who responded to the question, T5 percent stated that Lhey did not report at all to their council (wRRc, 1978, 92). If rhis represents a general pattern, the mechanisn of using municipal appointees may be inadequate Lo ensure accountability for watershed planning or for other matters. In addition to the representatives from municipalities, Conservation Authorities use advisory boards or committees for various subjects handled by the Authority (Pleva, 1961, 200). These advisory groups are not li.mited to members of the AuEhority, and thereby allow individrrals wirh special substantive or technicatr knowledge to become involved. This use of advisory boards is sensible, as it allows a greater network of interests and viewpoints to be heard, while retaining the actual decisionnaking power with the accrediEed members, either in the General Membership or Executive Cornmittee. Given the importance of accountability in river basin

its implicacions for the time required for planning and implenentation, it may be useful to examine recent changes in another jurisdiction where this rnafter has been under much debate. In England and Wales there are l0 Regional V,later Authorities (RWA) based on waEersheds, respoosible for a wide range of water management functions (Okun, 1977; Porter, 1978). Ongoing changes there represenL a thrust towards promoting accountability of and accessibility to decision making while management, and

realizing efficiency

(Payne

,

L977).

Under Lhe Llater Act 1973, the 10 Regional Water Authorities into existence on April 1974, replacing the 29 river authorities created under Lhe WaLer Resources Act 1963. The membership of the 10 authorities ranged between 16 and 62 members with the majority of members appointed by local governmenE councils. The inEent was that such members would represent consumer inEerests and thereby avoid the need for separate consumer councils (Department of the Environmenc, 1982, 4). came

Several events subsequently have led to widespread change. After examining the Severn-Trent Water Auchority, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission ( 198f, 324-326) recommended that the membership of the authority should be substantially reduced and not be based predominately on local government represenEaEion. The government subsequently decided to re-structure the Welsh

I2

Authority. The newly constituted Welsh authority came into effect in April 1982 with a membership of only 12, all of whom were appointed by the SecreEary of State for Wales.

Water

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

The DepartmenE of the Environment then issued a consultation paper in January 1982 concerning the size of nembership, the appointment of members, and represenEation of consumer and user inEerests. Several weaknesses of exiting arrangements were cited (Department of the Environment, 1982,7). The relatively large memberships on the Regional Water Authorities had led co a proliferation of committees, bureaucracy, avoidable expense, and a slowing down of decision making. Furthermore, while the intent in 1973 was that a local government majority on RWArs vould provide for access and accountability, this had become questionable. Few people knew who their local rePresenLatives on the RWAts were, or even that such representatives exisEed. The paralle1s with 0ntario Conservation Authorities are striking.

Given these weaknesses, Ehe consultation paper outlined five opE

ions

:

(1) increased local authority representation; (2) the existing system, with minor

changes;

(3) reduce the size of rhe large RWAts recaining the local authority majorities on all of rhem; (4) small boards (8-15 members) wiEh members but not a majoriry; and (5) small boards (8-15

members)

(Department

some

local authority

all appointed by Ministers.

of rhe Environment, 1982, 9-L2).

lrlhichever option was to be chosen, however, no change in the number (10), or areas (watersheds) of the RWA's was proposed (Department of rhe Environment, 1982, 3).

After receiving over 100 submissions, and having the matter of public accountabiliry debated in the House of Commons (June 15, 1982), the Minister of Local Government and Environmental Services announced a new policy in early July 1982. the Government had decided to establish smaller boards of between nine to 15 members, all appointed by Ministers. Local governments (Counry and District Councils) would have Ehe opporLunity to nominate people for some of these appointrnents. Further, advisory committees would be appointed for each division in a water authority and would contain representatives from local governments as weli as from industrial, commercial and domestic

IJ

plus agricuLtural and ameniry interests. The new will nost likely take effect during the surrner of incorporating these changes was printed on November 4, 1982, and received second reading on November 16th. consumers

arrangements 1983. A BilI

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

It does not automatically mean that policies in England and Wales would be appropriate or desirable in Ontario. For example, it has been suggested that an import.ant influence in these changes is attdesire on the part of GovernmenE to make the authorities more efficient in their function as utilities, i.". taking them farthet away from the local authoriry pattern which commenced in 1973t' (personal comrnunication, 1982). Nevertheless, an attempt is being made in these changes to balance the often incompatible concerns of efficiency and accountability. The British experience does sEress, however, a desir'e to accelerate or compress the management process, a consideration which should be a major concern of the ConservaEion Authorities as they develop watershed plans or other business. It also emphasizes Ehat the frequent discussion as to nheEher ConservaEion Authority members are elected or appointed represents a too narrow approach to a problem which nay be tackled in many different ways. The broader issue relates Eo the nature of instiEutional arrangements, and as Jarrett (1961, xii) has writ.ten,ttthe resources problems thar cause Ehe most trouble...almost always have strong social and institutional elements". The significance of institutional arrangements for water management policies and plans also has been stressed by McKinley (1950), Wengert (1957), Mitchell (1975) and Viessman ( 1982)

.

Mechanism

for Coordination During lmplementation

If the flature of inst.itutional arrangements is important concerning "accountabilitytt, it also is fundamental in facilitating or hindering the transition from planning to implementation. In a study of intergovernmenEal management of floodplains in the United States, Platt eE al. (1980, 30)

that 'rfloodplain management in the United States is a chaotic patEern of diverse policies and projects, attitudes and approaches, each ensuing from the self-interest of individual units of management agency". A basic concern was over Lhe fragmentation - vertical, horizontal or functional - of public authority over floodplains (platt eE al., 1980, 26). commented

This same fragmentation can be observed in Ontario, and raises the familiar issue of which are the most appropriate institutional arrangements to ensure coordinaLion or integration of various management functions in what should be comprehensive resource management plans (Baker, 1.976). This consideration

L4

significant when iL is recognized thac numerous planning exercises are being conducted by various provincial agencies, but that the different plans are confined co the responsibilities within the mandate and jurisdiction of each agency. For example, the draft of a Ministry of Natural Resources District land use sErategy is prefaced with Ehe statement that "It should be noted, however, Ehat t-his strategy deals with only the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources" (Carnbridge District, 1982, iii). In contrast, the watershed plan of a Conservation Aurhority states thaE "the programs and policies of rhe WaEershed Plan are seen as being appli.ed to the major resource areas vithin Ehe Authorityrs area of jurisdiction" (Metropoliran Toronto and R.egion Conservation Authority, 1980, 22). Since the MNR District land use sErategies include forestryfisherier, wildlife, parks and recreation, and lands and ltaqer all of which are pertinent to a natershed plan - it seems appropriate to explore how these appareotly separate but complementary planning exercises can be implemented in an Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

becomes even more

effective

manner.

Parker and Penning-Rowse1l (1980, 19) succinctl.y have idenrified the characteristics of alternaEive insLiEutional arrangemenfs which represent tttwo opposite direcEionsrr. In their words,

First, there is pressure for fewer but larger organizations responsible for many or all water functioos. Such organizations aim to minimize conflicts between functions and maximize both the potenti.al for multipurpose use of water and the economies of scale from exploiring water and associated resources aE a regional or larger scale. However, the fewer and the larger Ehe water planning organizations the greaEer the potential for inflexibility and the less the 'public is protected from excessive concentrations of economic and politi.cal power. Herein lies rhe second pressure which is for greater loca1 public accountability of the rrater planning system to ensure effective satisfaction of 1ocal needs and specialist agencies to promote particular functional areas. This pressure can result in a proliferation of organizations, both local and regional, wiEh divided responsibility for any one function and greater potential for conflict beLween and within organizations than with large mulEi-funcEional agencies. A review of approaches in a varieEy of jurisdictions reveals that both of these approaches have been used. In England and Wales, for example, the Regional Water Authorities are responsible for water conservation and supply, sewerage, sewage treatment and disposal, pollution conErol, flood control, drainage, fisheries, and water-based recreation. These represent

15

a trend towards fewer but larger organizations responsible for functions. In contrast, reorganization in Scotland during 1975 replaced 13 independenE catchment-based regional Water Boards nith water departmenEs established within Ehe loca1 government structure. This nove \tas taken to check what was viewed as a proliferaEion of ad hoc government as exernplified by the independent Water Boards (Parker and Penning-Rowse11, 1980,

rnany

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

23).

Other patterns appear. In France, six basin agencies vere establ.ished during 1965 wittr Ehe objective to insure equilibriun between water demand and supply, to establish htater quality criteria and effluent charges, and to provide flood conErol (Harrison and Sewell, L975; I976i Barr6 and Bower, 1981, 5l and 103). On the other hand, in Australia ehere are several basinoriented agencies with different functions. The Dandenong VaIley Authority is responsible for drainage, flood conLrol and water qualityl the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust deals with flood control and soil conservation; the Northern Rivers Flood Control Authorities focus upon flood rnitigation.

A sinilar variety of approaches has emerged in Canada. In British Columbia, river basin management has been set aside in favour of a concept labe1led tintegraEed resource managementt in which water is but one of many interrelated resources to be considered (O'Riordan, l98t). Manitoba has five Conservation Districts whose boundaries may be determined by either the area outlined by the drainage basin of Ehe major river of the district or by the boundaries of rhe nunicipalities forming the district. ttThe formation of a conservaEion district establishes a single authority having responsibility of conserving and managing the water, soil and related resources within the district (Maniroba, 1981, 3). In Saskatchewan, a two-fold approach has been developed. "Valley Authorities" are being created to develop and implement long-term conservation and recreaLion plans for river-edge lands in urban areas. Two authoriEies have been established - the l"leewasin Val1ey Authority (L979) in Saskatoon and the I'lakamow Valley Authority ( 1981) in Moose Jaw. Others are under consideration for North Battleford, Prince Albert and Swift Current. Under the Drainage Control Act, 1981, the Saskatchetran Minister of the Environnent was authorized to establish watershed areas and a Watershed Commission in each rural area to handle drainage and related flooding problems. In April 1982, a pilot watershed commission \{as announced, but the change of government resulted in a freeze on that decision, Within Ontario, a similar diversity of institutional exisLs. In Northern Ontario, water management is organized on the basis of administrative districts rather than naEersheds. ln the south. wat.ersheds form the basis for arrangements

on

16

by Conservation Authorities. However, the inability of the mandaEe of the Conservation Authorities to facilitate comprehensive nanagement has been recognized in inEer-agency basin exercises in the Thames, the Grand and the South Nation rivers, as well as in the joint approach with Quebec and Ottawa on the 0ttawa River (Harvey, 1981.)

managemenE

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

The poinr to be made here is sirnple and straighEforward. In Ontario, the principle of different institutional approaches to problem-solving for water issues is already well esEablished. This reflects the sensible practi.ce around the world of custom-designing to solve problems with careful regard to the local context. As a result, if waEershed plans are to be implemented more effectively in 0nEario, more aLtention should be given to improving the custom-design of institutional arrangement.s to accommodate loca1 conditions around the province.

In some parts of the province, where problems are numerous and complex, it would make sense to move closer to the English and I'lelsh model and give more planning and rnanagement functions to a single agency. In other areas, the existing

mandaEe

of

the

Conservation Authorities is quite likely to be adequate for Lhe task. The specific type of institutional arrangements will have to be chosen based on management objectives, constrainEs, and available resources. Since a variety of instirutional arrangement.s already exists, there seems to be little merit in debating

in tteither/or" terms. That is, too often objections to modificarions of institutional arraogements are raised because they would not "fit'r in al1 areas and regions, and therefore iE is argued that things should be left as is. In contrast, a strong case can be made for increasing the number of functions of some auEhorities, and leaving the others as is. While this roay be administratively nessy to those who prefer a standardized approach, iE also may result in more effective problem-solving. In brief, the argument for differenE insEitutional arrangement.s to reflect different loca1 conditions across the province, simply echoes a comment by the Honourable Dana Porter (1945, 11) at the Conference on River Valley Development in Southern Ontario held ir London during 1944 when he stated that trwe have come to the conclusion that there is no ooe sirnple solution of the problems EhaE are before us'r. CONCLUSIONS

At Ehe outset of this paper, it was suggested that river basin or watershed planning is falling into disrepuEe, primarily because of a frequent failure Lo translate plans into action. Several reasons were offered to account for this disenchantment. Two are strategic and two are operational in nature.

77

At a straregic level, it is appropriate Eo challenge the notion that comprehensive watershed plans are essential for every basin. There may well be basins in which other planning approaches would be better suited. Furthermore, it is timely to explore alternative institutional arrangements to facilitate coordination during both planning and implementation. Accepting the idea of custom-designing for local conditions and use of different arrangemenEs in differenr conditions would smoothen the r.ray to introducing innovative institutional arrangements. Both of these concepts already seem well established in Ontario, so it is difficulE to understand why these considerations cannot be

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

pursued more sysLematically.

At an operaEional level, thought is required regarding the implications of both longer and shorter periods of rirne for watershed planning and implementation. Trade-offs must be recognized, especially vith reference to public participarion and accountability. Also, much more thought is required concerning the number and type of recornmendations in watershed plans. Too frequently the recommendations become obstacles or barriers and frustrate the implementation process. Numerous weaknesses associated with watershed planning and management have been identified, but an effort also has been made

to offer solutions. It is easy to cire problems and harder to resolve them. Nevertheless, we must recognize and appreciate the problems before attempting to reduce or eliminate them. This approach is preferable Lo the alternative, described by Powell ( 198 I , 57 ) in the fo I lowing nanner: The saddest point in this litany of impedinents is not that they exist. It is Ehat so many ConservaEion Authorities use that existence as an excuse for the inadequacy of fheir orm river basin programs. Impediments are removable. Cornplacency and inertia are far more insidious, and inexcusable.

While it has been argued that changes are required to rnake river basin planning rnore effective, it is not suggested Ehat the drainage basin or watershed be rejected as the areal unit for planning and management. The unified treaEmenE of eotire drainage basins in conjunction with rnultiple-purpose projects and concern for overall regional development form the core components of river basin planning (Whire, 1950; 1957). Nevertheless, while the drainage basin provides a sensible framework for planning, there should be flexibility to plan at other scales (1oca1, interregional), depending upon the nature of the problems to be resolved.

REFERENCES

Baker, R. 1976. ttThe AdrninistraEive Traptr, Ecologist. Vo1. 6, No'

7,

247-25L,

and Bower, B .T. 1981 . ttV,later Management in France, with Special Emphasis on VJater Quality llanagement and EffluenE

Barr6, R.

. lncentives in Water Quality Management: France nu[Areq, Ly B.T. Bower et al. Resources for the Future. Washington, D .C. , 3I-209 . f982. Draft Land Use Strategy. Ministry of Canbridge District. Natural Resources. Carnbridge, Ontario. June. Cha

rge s'l

and the

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Cardy, W.F.G. 1981 . "River Basins and Water Management in New r sr! Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 5, No. Brunswick". v - er.e' t 4, 66-79. Department of the Environment. 1982. The MembershiP of Regional Water Authorities. A Consultation Paper from the DePartment London, England. January. 5T-6EEiGo"n."t. Environment Canada, Evaluation Branch. i981. An Evaluation of rhe iver Basin Planning and ImplementaEion PrograisL Inland Waters Directorat.e. Environmental Conservation Service. EvaluaEion Corporate Planning Group, Planning

Directorate.

Ottawa

Frisch, J. and Chaney, T. 1982. ttCurrenE Status of the Replacements for the Title I1 River Basin Planning Commissionstt, Unified Rirr"r Ba"t@t edited by D.J. Water Resources Association. Minneapolis, 327-337.

ic"n

.

Galloway, G.E. 1982. "Problems in Project Development: Why so Long from Conception to ImPlementation?rr, Unified River Basin Managenent - Stag , edited by D.J. Alleef L.B. Resources Association. @erican Minneapolis , I29-T42.

E,K. 1945. "The Origin and Significance of the Ganaraska Reporttt, River Valley Development in Southern Ontario. ts Ontario o Printer, Toronto, 81-83.

Ilampson,

I. 1965. "Evaluating the Role of Special Districts in Natural Resources Management", Journal of Soil and Water ganageryg!. Vo1. 20, No. 1, January-February, 8-11.

Hanson,

18

L9

Hare, F.K. L974. "Geography and Public Policy: A Canadian View'r, Transactions of the Institute of Briti"h G"ogr"ph .

Ilarrj.son, P. and Sewell , W.R.D. 1975. ttWater Reorganization in France: A Decade of Readjustmentrr, W.ater. January, 44-48.

Harrison, P. and Sewell, W.R.D. L976. "La r6organization economique et regionale de la gestion des eaux en Francett. Cahiers de G6ographie de Qu6bec. Vol. 20, No. 49' 127-t42. Harvey, A. 1981. "Promising Steps Toward a New Ottawa River Regulationtt, Canadian Water Resources Journal-. Vol. 6 No. 4, L7 4.-LB

D.iI. L974. "River Basin Water Planning Organizations in the 50tstt, W.ater Resources Bul1.etin. Vo1 . 10, No. 6,

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Hoggan,

1173-1r_86.

Jarrett"H.1961.''Editor'sIntroduction'',@ Management, edited by H. Jarret. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltinore, ix-xv. Manitoba, Water Resources Branch. 1981. Annyal Report of the Conservation District Boards of Manitoba, 1980. DePartment

McKinley. C. 1950. "The Va11ey Authority and i.ts Alternatives" American Political Science Revj.ew. Vo1. 44, No. 3' 607-631-. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Watershed Plan. Metropolitan Toronto and Reglon Conservation Authority. Downsview, December.

1980.

Mitchell, B. (ed.) 1975. Institutional Arrangements for Water Management: Canadian Experiences. Publication No. 5. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Ontario. Mitchell, B. 1980. "Unified River Basin Management?rt, llater Resources Journal. Vo1. 5, No. 2, 87-95.

Canadian

Monopolies and Mergers Commission. 1981. Severn-Trent Water Authority, East Worces_ter.s.hir_e. I,Iaterw.orks Company and the Sou.th Stafforshi.re Waterworks Company: A Relort on Water Services Supplied by the A.uthority .and the Conpanies. H.M.S.O., London, England, June 9th.

20

Okun,

D.A.

_Bggr"""1i".ti""

7977

W.

"f Applied Science Revolution in England and Wa1es. Publishers,

London.

1981. "New Strategies for Water Resources Planning in British Columbia", Canadian Water Resources Journal. Vol. 6, No. 4, 13-43.

O'Riordan, J.

Parker, D.J, and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. 1980. Water Planning in Britain. George Al1en and Unwin, London. Payne,

B.J. L977. Water Authorities and Planqing Authorities: A iPer Number St,rdy of o"v"l 1, Department of Tovm and Country Planning, University of

M:nchpsl'cr. Manchester.

Pentland, R.L. 1981. "A Federal Perspective on River Basin Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Managementr', Canadian Water Resources

No. 4, 80-94.

Journal. VoI.

6,

Platt, R.H, et al. 1980. Intergovernmental Management of Floodplains. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Denver. Pleva, E.G. 1961. "Multiple Purpose Land and Water Districts in Ontario", Comparisons in Resource Management, edited by H. Jarrett, Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, 189-207. Pope,

A.W. 1981.

ttRemarks

Water Resources

of the Honourable A.W. Pope", Cqne4igg Journal. Vo1. 6, No. 4, 7-12.

Porter, D. 1945. ttAddress of Welcomerr, River Val1ey Development in Southern Ontario, Ontario Department of Planning and Development. Klng's Printer, Toronto, II-I2. Pcwel1, J.R. 1981. "River Basin Management in Ontario'r , Canadian Water Resources Jour4el. Vol. 6, No. 4, 5r-6s.

W. 1982. "National Water Policy: The Need for Institutional Reformtt, Environm.ental Management. Vo1. 6, No.1,35-41.

Viessman,

Waterloo Regi.on Revier^r Comrnission. 1978. Water Management on the Grand River: A Provincial/Municipql Dilernna. Waterloo Region Review Commission, Waterloo, ontario. Wengert, N. 1957. "The Politics _l-"r "nd Contenpor.ry

of River Basin Developmentt', . Vo1 . 22, Spring, 258-275.

2I Wengert, N. 1981. "A Critical Review of the River Basin as a Focus for Resources Planning, Development, and Management", Unified River Ees-Ln Management, edited by R"M. North, L.B. Dworsky and D.J. Allee, American Water Resources Association, MinneapoTis, 9-27,

I^Ihite, G.F. 1950. 'rNational Executive Organization for Water Resources", American Political Science Review. VoI. 44, No. 3, 593-607 .

Downloaded by [91.188.39.232] at 13:54 24 March 2014

Whlte, G.F. 1957. "A Perspective of River Basin Developmentt', Law and Conternporaty- Problems. VoI. 22, Sptj-r'g, 157-1-87.