Green Infrastructure

“The Water Balance Model and Green Infrastructure partnerships were formed within a year of each other, in 2002 and 2003. The Water Balance Model Partnership came first because this scenario modelling tool was developed as an extension of the Stormwater Guidebook. Our initial successes raised awareness and interest such that the UBCM leadership gave us a platform at their 2003 UBCM convention. This resulted from the advocacy of Gibson Mayor Barry Janyk. Kim Stephens asked Chilliwack’s Dipak Basu to help tell our WBM story,” stated Ted van der Gulik.

“Housing should be about building homes that people can afford in communities that work. We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and be seduced by simplistic solutions. There is a relationship between infrastructure services, open space, employment, etc. All those things are supposed to be brought together in plans and reflected in development decisions. And they are not anymore. I want to do what I can to help the current generation of decision makers understand what it is about regional planning that has got us to this point,” stated Ken Cameron.

“The Partnership for Water Sustainability hosted an inter-regional and intergenerational gathering. We had representation from five regions in southern British Columbia. We brought together alumni and current local government staff to engage each other in roundtable group discussions. Some of our ambassadors suggested that we host focused regional forums on specific areas of concern. Some believe field visits similar to the Showcasing Green Infrastructure Innovation Series in the 2000s can again lead to further cooperation and sharing,” stated Rémi Dubé.

“Gaps between vision and reality are, of course, standard in politics. What makes this one frustrating to water-sustainability experts is how close to success the green infrastructure push came before it got derailed. Through decades of effort, planning had become policy, and policy had started to become practice. Now the question is whether the high profile of floods, droughts, and population growth will put green infrastructure back in the spotlight—and, if so, whether the decision-makers within Metro Vancouver’s municipalities will correct course,” stated Pamela Swanigan.

“Asset Management concepts have been around long enough for staff and elected officials to have an awareness of the issues. We need to truly begin addressing the struggle to implement. One of the big priorities for me this year is to just start bringing Asset Management back to reality. The theme that I am now promoting is this, just tell us your story because people can learn from stories. It does not have to be perfect. We know it is not perfect. But do not be afraid to tell the story. Passing on knowledge really is about the stories,” stated Arnold Schwabe.

“In conversation after conversation when I am doing interviews, the need for organizations to rediscover the power of storytelling keeps coming up. Within the local government sector, the good news is that Asset Management BC is taking the initiative to walk the talk and create a forum for storytelling. Their initiative is newsworthy and notable. They are onto something. They are providing a safe space for local government people to share their stories of struggle in a changing world. When people acknowledge that there is a problem, then they can solve it,” stated Kim Stephens.

Susan Haid played a leadership role in trailblazing an ecosystem-based approach to community planning in BC. This approach flowed from passage of the Fish Protection Act 1997. “With an ecosystem-based approach to planning, you can look back and you can look forward. The principles of diversity, interconnectivity, and redundancy within a systems approach are very robust and stand the test of time,” stated Susan Haid. In the 2000s, leaders ventured into uncharted territory. Great changes took place. These were possible because individuals took personal risks to innovate.

“Zooming out to view the past three decades as a whole, the period 1997 through 2005 was the crucible for the golden period that followed from 2006 through 2011. The era is bracketed by the passage of the Fish Protection Act in 1997 and the Green Infrastructure Consultation Workshop held in May 2005. These were literally watershed moments.A large cast of characters was involved. We were venturing into uncharted territory. We pushed the boundaries of knowledge and experience. We learned together,” stated Kim Stephens.

British Columbia’s Fish Protection Act in 1997 was a response to the Coho salmon crisis. When it was enacted, it established a North American first because it did what nobody else had done. It established a provincial regulation to protect stream corridors in urban areas. “What we saw was, things will get worse if we do not change our ways. ‘The combination of streamside regulation and Washington State research directly influenced the stormwater component of the region’s first Liquid Waste Management Plan,” stated Robert Hicks.

“Transformation is often fraught with danger for both the change agents themselves and their organizations. It is like dancing with a tiger – with the outcome frequently uncertain. So why would you want to engage in a dance with a force that would as soon eat you as dance with you? The underlying reason is simply that our common future depends upon it,” wrote Brian Nattrass and Mary Altomare, authors of Dancing with the Tiger. Their analogy provides relevant context for the third installment of the Chronicle of Green Infrastructure Innovation in Metro Vancouver for the years from 1997 to 2005.