Section 29, Drinking Water Protection Act

The Glade Watershed Protection Society submitted a Section 29 to the Interior Health Authority (March 2016). Basically, it states that there is reason to believe that should the proposed logging proceed our water will be compromised.

s._29_complete_and_gid_los_2016._atco_and_klc.pdf
File Size:	3813 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Section 29 of the Drinking Water Protection Act is very broad. “If a person considers that there is a threat to their drinking water, the person may request the drinking water officer to investigate the matter”. The drinking water officer must review the request and consider whether an investigation is warranted. There are a number of similar situations that Interior Health anticipates will prompt the request for investigations. These include but are not limited to logging, cattle grazing, and recreational use in watersheds that contribute to water supplies for individuals or communities. (https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourEnvironment/DrinkingWater/Documents/Conditions-on-Permit.pdf)

In the Jefferd Creek area, a Section 29 investigation was used successfully to stop logging in the Stillwater watershed. (Article from West Coast Environmental Law)

10 April, 2012
In 2004 the residents of the tiny community of Stillwater, near Powell River, learned that BC Timber Sales (BCTS) was planning to auction off the rights to clearcut 12.5 hectares in the Jefferd Creek watershed, which is the source of their drinking water.  Well, it’s been a long fight, but after 8 years and a series of grants to the Committee for the Protection of Jefferd Creek from West Coast’s Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, BCTS has agreed to scale its proposed 12.5 hectare cut down to 1.5 hectares – located well away from the Creek – because of concerns about the drinking water impacts.  Congratulations to the Committee and to the Stillwater Improvement District for this victory for common sense. 

Update March 2017

Unfortunately, one year after the initial application, the Interior Health Authority Drinking Water Officer decided not to initiate a s.29, even though 134 community letters went to the IHA office requesting that they follow through with an investigation. 
Glade Creek has elevated levels of turbidity, this is a concern because excess turbidity makes water treatment less effective. Glade Watershed Protection Society believes that because of this already elevated turbidity, it is even more important that our water is protected from impacts like proposed road building.

The Environmental Health Officer stated in her letter (March 9, 2017):

• "We have reviewed the information brought forward by the GID and GWPA [sic] and have determined that evidence to support an investigation has not been provided to warrant a Sec. 29 investigation."  This statement is not surprising, as neither licensee provided details like site plans or road design and layout plans.
• The EHO goes on to say: "As a matter of jurisdiction, we believe it is not appropriate to apply a Section 29 investigation to the legal framework and approvals processes of forestry activities of MFLNRO."   (emphasis mine)

However, additional information regarding the licensees proposed plans, a more concise look at data like existing turbidity and other factors may provide evidence to support a reconsideration of the s. 29 investigation.

Glade clouds. Digital enhanced. HMcS

UPDATE: July 2019 Legal Action

In an effort to be heard, the Glade Watershed Protection Society (GWPS) has filed court documents which were served to Atco Wood Products, Kalesnikoff Lumber Company, and the Interior Health Authority Tuesday January 22, 2019: these court documents are an application for injunctive relief and is scheduled to be heard on February 4, 2019. The injunctive relief is a request that logging be legally deferred until the Judicial Review of the IHA’s decision has been made, and/or until the Forest Practices Board Investigation is completed.
In addition, there is a petition for a Judicial Review of the s.29. Since the IHA decided not to initiate any investigation, essentially abdicating all responsibility of their office, we are asking the court to review that decision.