Convening for Action in British Columbia

“We must do a better job of protecting streams. I am in a position now to reflect on this because I believe I have earned that right over the course of a 30-year career. Given how much I have seen, done and been exposed to in my local government career, it is fair for me to reflect on what has happened and comment on why local governments have not been as successful as we would have wanted. But we must focus on the path forward so that we protect or enhance stream systems in the built environment,” stated Richard Boase.

“In many ways, what I am teaching comes back to the same kind of framework around ecosystem-based planning which Erik Karlsen and others were advancing in the 1990s, and which is synonymous with watershed-based planning,” stated Susan Haid. “Titled Policy for a Sustainable Region, it is big picture and is about policy frameworks to influence urban design. A lot of it is case studies and reflection. But I also bring in resiliency and ecological frameworks, with lectures on what are the best practices going forward. I call these sessions SHARPENING THE EDGE.”

“In late 1996, in came Erik Karlsen from the Province as the spokesperson for the first Fish Protection Act. He convened discussions with environmental, engineering and planning staff. Those were such fantastic discussions. There was a really good alignment and call to action on making streamside regulation work. It was a major advancement but a lot of stress as well. Streamside regulation was being portrayed as a huge land grab. There was a lot of back and forth to move from something that was site-specific to more of a hardline edict with the province,” stated Susan Haid.

“Unless you have legislation that tells you what the important requirements are, it is very hard to go forward. Legislation drives scientific questions; in turn, science informs legislation. It is not a one-time thing, but rather iterative. The science forward approach which some academics advocate is a good idea but has practical challenges. One of the challenges with science forward is if it is not legislated, it is not a priority for government. Also, you do not know what the hydrologic values are going to be 30 years from now. So it is very hard to figure out what questions to ask,” stated Mike Wei.

“It got my attention when Mike Wei pointed out that the 1200 aquifers in BC are typically tiny. The median size is about twice the area of downtown Vancouver. And so they are ignored because they are not viewed as important. But you live and die at that scale. So, what is the path forward that Mike Wei suggests? Well, it has three elements that make sense to me: deploy the legislative framework to ask the right questions; use the battleground watersheds for scientific research; and protect the local interest and do it well, and do it well everywhere,” stated Kim Stephens.

“The Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan is truly a collaborative outcome. And most importantly, it is currently fully funded, although without a dedicated watershed service, this funding depends on the support of our elected officials. Because the advisory group represented a broad variety of interests, the plan has a very high level of community support. The watershed plan is a living document. We made that clear upfront. We also committed to revisiting the content as necessary to keep the plan relevant and to address changing conditions,” stated Zoe Norcross-Nu’u.

“It takes a decade to create a good culture in an organization. But you can destroy it in a year with the wrong political leadership. To keep it going, you must continue to do good things. It takes good ideas. But it also takes a Council that is supportive of the good ideas. And it takes money to follow through and implement those ideas. Instill a culture of continuous improvement and giving back to the community so that the community elects good, well-meaning people. It is a cycle. If you keep that cycle going, there is no end to it,” stated Pete Steblin.

“Hire excellent people. Then let them make the operational decisions. Council always makes the policy decisions, but always with the advice of staff. Ask the right questions to make sure you are comfortable with recommendations,” stated Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart. “We are trying to get people working together. It is a fragile balance. In the age of social media, the Council reality is that, on a whim, the public can make changes based on information that is not accurate. If the public ever loses confidence in either Council or Staff, we could end up with a wrench in the works.”

“As far as my research into water is concerned, I finally realized that in human-water entanglements, the human is an elemental episode in an endlessly revisable text without words, which is water. That way of thinking comes from my post-modern background in English literature. My professor Raymond Federman had said that but he referred to the world rather than water as a text. I thought, what if I just say that we humans are just an elemental episode. In the big picture, after all, we are latecomers in geological history,” stated Serpil Oppermann.

“Our land ethic has consequences for water and the land it runs through. Atmospheric rivers and droughts, the situation is dire. At the summit, we will shine the spotlight on examples of policies and tools that enable local governments to implement a restorative approach. The water balance is out of balance. Time is of the essence. Science, applied research and experience underpin WHY WE ARE SO POSITIVE in terms of our philosophy that we can turn things around,” stated Richard Boase.