1. Toward the development of northern water standards
Kathleen Racher
Water Resources Division
Hello, my name is Kathy Racher and I am here to give a talk about the development of water standards for the north. I originally gave this talk at the nwt board forum about a month ago and Mr Hagen then asked if I could give it here so that all of the board members would have a chance to see what is going on in this area. So, I want to thank you all for allowing me to speak about this here at this time.
presentation to the MVLWB
December 5, 2007

2. Auditor General’s Report 2005
The audit…
“examined how well INAC has managed its responsibilities for the process set out in the MVRMA for the development of non-renewable resources in the NWT.”
One recommendation…
“INAC, in consultation with the boards under the MVRMA, should develop standards for water and the Minister should direct the boards to use the standards.”
In 2005, the Auditor General performed an audit to examine how well INAC has managed its responsibilities for the process set out in the MVRMA for the development of non-renewable resources in the NWT. They pointed out that although non-renewable resources offer “enormous potential” for economic development in the NWT; the investment climate for this development is uncertain, in part because INAC has not adequately managed its role in the process that considers development projects.
Please note, in this case, the Auditor did not audit any of the boards’ responsibilities for their practices, procedures, or internal administration; nor tid they examine the roles that other federal departments and agencies played in the process.
The Auditor looked at the whole regulatory process then identified four areas where it felt that INAC needed to “revisit” the scale of its involvement in the process:
-providing guidance on key terms in the legislation,
-establishing regulations for water quality (the sole focus of this talk)
-ensuring the boards have the necessary resources to carry out their functions, and
-requiring boards to be accountable not only for financial performance but also for the way in which they manage their responsibilties for the process.

3. INAC Response: Providing proponents with greater certainty
Ascertain the information needs of water users (with respect to water standards used by the boards to set licence terms and conditions).
In consultation with the boards, develop water standards and set them out in codes, guidelines, policy, or regulations as best fits the need.
In INAC’s response, we agreed that we needed to provide proponents with greater certainty – but the more we have looked at this, the more we have realized that we will all benefit from greater certainty in the process – from the side of intervenors, the public, and yourselves as the decision makers.
We said we would do that by, first - completing a report on information needs – what has been happening so far, and defining what are main points of uncertainty
Secondly, INAC said that we would, in consultation with the boards, develop…
The report that we commissioned for the first part actually did more than gather information though – the report actually details several options for how we might approach water standards and how each option might be implemented.

4. What do we need with respect to water standards and in what form?
“Toward the development of northern water standards: review and evaluation of approaches for managing water use in northern Canada”
-Macdonald Environmental Sciences Ltd, 2007
Basically the paper tries to answer the question: “What do we need with respect to water standards and in what form?”. For this work we contracted someone who has had many years experience working for different clients within the NWT regulatory system – Don Macdonald. His paper is entitled…
Included in your binders in a summary version of his report – the complete report totals over 100 pages and I will be happy to send an electronic copy to every one of you who would like to read it. It is extremely detailed but worth the read.

5. Discussion Paper: Towards the development of northern water standards
Evaluate existing approaches to water management in the NWT
Review approaches used by other jurisdictions
Propose several possible options to address Auditor General’s concerns
For each option, outline a process for implementation
And we have labelled this a Discussion Paper – because this is exactly what it is to be used for. It does not set out THE answer, but rather, it brings up lots of information and options that we all need to look at and discuss.
Essentially, we asked Don Macdonald to address four things in his paper…
To evaluate existing approaches to water management in the nwt – to get a handle on what we have been doing
To review approaches used by other jurisdictions – both to compare and to see what is working elsewhere
To propose several possible options that would address the AG’s concerns about providing proponents with more certainty, and
For each option, to outline a process for implementation that would help us understand the pros and cons of each approach
Now, keep in mind that it is very difficult to summarize a 150 page paper in a 20 minute talk – so I will be addressing the highlights and won’t be going through these points systematically, rather, I will be looking at them all.
But first, let me say that neither the Auditor General nor anyone else has said that there is anything wrong with the way we have, collectively, been managing or regulating water and water quality. Keep this in mind as I speak of different options – this is not, necessarily, about making “better” decisions, but rather about making the process more certain, more clear, for proponents so that, as the AG said: “applicants for licences or permits should be able to know before they submit their proposals the standards for water use and waswte disposal that they must meet. In that way, they would be able to demonstrate in their project plans how they will meet those standards.”

6. Factors considered in setting effluent quality criteria in existing licences
Properties of the water body:
Baseline conditions
Natural animal and plant species
Volume, shape, flow
Properties of the industry:
Volume of waste-water
Contaminant types
Best available treatment technologies
Lake
So, what have we been doing? Here is my stock picture of an industrial development on a lake – and here is the wastewater for the development that, generally, goes back into a water body. So, how, in the past, have we collectively decided on appropriate “effluent quality criteria” for each licence? That is, what limits have we imposed on proponents for their end-of-pipe discharges?
Mr. Macdonald investigated this by first reviewing all the Type A water licenses granted in the NWT in the last 30 odd years. From those, three licenses were chosen for a detailed case study. The criteria were that one case study come from each of the three major industries (mining, remediation and municipal) and that the reasons for establishing the key WL conditions were well documented. The details can be found in the complete report.
The basic finding was that we have considered all the relevant pieces of information…as I am about to discuss…and that we did it on a case-by-case basis. We considered:
The properties of the water body that was going to receive the wastewater
The properties of the industry – including what contaminants were of potential concern and how the proponent might be able to treat them
And, finally, the water quality objectives that were specific to that water body and those downstream – where WQO’s are essentially what residents said they wanted the water quality to be – and in which locations (i.e., close to the end of pipe, farther away, downstream etc.)
Now, whatever set of standards or whatever framework we come up with to deal with water quality issues in future – these same factors will always be considered. Because they are logical and must form the basis of a decision on effluent quality criteria/limits. But remember, we were not told that we were making bad or wrong decisions, we were only asked to provide more certainty. So let us focus on points of uncertainty from a proponent’s viewpoint. As a scientist, I can eliminate much of the uncertainty on the properties of the water body or even on the properties of the industry. Eliminating uncertainty is largely the point of science – we observe, experiment, measure, make equations etc for the purpose of being able to reliably predict the consequences of our choices and actions.
But there are a couple of very valid factors here that belong in a category I like to call the “don’t ask a scientist list”. Things that fall in this category always involve value judgements - Here is the first one – what do people Want the water quality to be? There is no right or wrong answer to that question. There is no equation that a scientist can come up with that will tell you What People Want. Yet, What People Want is an extremely important aspect here – and the range of possible answers here could be from “ah go ahead and put whatever in the lake, just so long as we have jobs” to “don’t change that water quality at all, it needs to remain as it is”. Most likely, the majority of people will want something in the middle. But my point is, this is a value judgment and, therefore, we cannot look to science to tell us the answer.
However, if you tell me what You want the water quality to be at, say, this point, I can, as a scientist, tell you what the water quality at the end of pipe will Have to be in order to preserve the water quality you desire here. Basically, western scientists are handy to have around but be wary when they start telling you what you should want – you all are there to take in the info and make the value judgements on behalf of all the people you are representing.
Getting back to uncertainty – is there a way to standardize water quality objectives? And this leads us to the first identified option that Don came up with.
As a scientist, I, for example, could help describe or define many of these factors. However, there are at least three factors that Of all the possible factors that can and are considered in setting EQC, there are at least three factors that can only be partially based on objective scientific criteria – but that are largely subjective:
Available/feasible treatment technologies..in theory, we could ask a company to set up a world-class treatment technology that would elimInate all the contaminants. However, this may not be necessary as the these contaminants will be diluted, rendering them less harmful. Also, there needs to be a balance struck between the cost of the treatment technology and the needs of keeping the environment clean.
WQO’s: what residents want the water quality to be an ideal world, the water coming out at the end of the pipe would be as clean as the water in the lake…however, this may not be technologically feasible or it may not even be necessary – as the contaminants will be instantly diluted in the environment therefore reducing their concentration.
So we define limits for the concentration of various contaminants that come out of the pipe – The company tests their effluent before it leaves the pipe and ensures that the concentration of contaminants is lower than the limits that we set.
We set these limits based on what we know from laboratory analysis: For example
Water quality objectives:
What residents said they wanted the water quality to be at specific locations

7. Option 1: Establish Uniform Water Quality Objectives for the NWT1) 2)
Protect drinking water use
Protect aquatic life
Natural water quality
Can we “simply” establish uniform water quality objectives for the NWT? If so, how? Were there are two main ways in which this is done – and, again, it depends entirely upon what “the people” want. Some would like to preserve the Natural water quality. This is called the “non-degradation approach”. Others think it is ok for the water quality to be degraded a little as long as they are still able to safely drink the water. Others say that they also want to be able to protect all the aquatic life – for fishing for example. These are both examples of the “use-protection approach”.
So how would this help to provide more certainty?
In order to provide certainty – we could say that the water quality at a certain distance from the pipe must not degrade from its natural state. IN this case, a scientist can tell you what the background or natural state is and you go from there. Although this statement would definitely provide certainty – it may also provide some certainty that most developments could not proceed here. The use-protection approach is the generally the most popular approach.
Well, one can pick a level at which one wants to protect all water in the NWT at or one can define what the objectives will be for every individual water body – for example, each state in the US has made a comprehensive list of all water bodies and has decided, for each one, what “use” needs to be protected and what guidelines apply for that use. So a proponent can know, in advance, what will be required for them. But, wow, we have a lot of water bodies up here and the amount of work required to set individual objectives for each water body is huge. So this is a downfall of this option.
As well, in order to apply the Use Protection approach, you have to already know what the maximum levels of all possible contaminants are that will protect, say, fish. To do this, we can rely somewhat on existing water quality guidelines – like the CCME guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Why don’t we just adapt those? Well, unfortunately, those guidelines were established using data collected on southern species of fish, in southern conditions. They are useful for us, but we would need to do a lot of research before we could adapt them to be used across the board for northern conditions.
Non-degradation
approach
Use-protection
approach
Much more research required

8. Factors considered in setting effluent quality criteria in existing licences
Properties of the water body:
Baseline conditions
Natural animal and plant species
Volume, shape
Properties of the industry:
Volume of waste-water
Contaminant type
Best available treatment technologies
Lake
Back to this slide – as there is one other area in which I see uncertainty: Available/feasible treatment technologies..in theory, we could ask a company to set up a world-class treatment technology that would elimInate all the contaminants. However, this may not be necessary as the these contaminants will be diluted, rendering them less harmful. Also, there needs to be a balance struck between the cost of the treatment technology and the needs of keeping the environment clean.
Again, we are working off the “don’t ask a scientist list” – since “best” is a word that necessarily involves a value judgement . A scientist can tell you what all the treatment technologies are, but cannot tell you how much the proponent should pay or not for example. So how could we address the uncertainty here?
Water quality objectives:
What residents said they wanted the water quality to be at specific locations

9. Option 2: Establish Industry-Specific Effluent Quality Criteria
Based on an analysis of the best “practical” treatment technologies of each industry type.
e.g., Metal Mining Effluent Regulations
However, this analysis has not yet been done for:
Diamond mining
Quarrying
Oil and gas developments
Municipal developments
This leads to a second option – to establish industry-specific effluent quality criteria. This is based on the fact that for every industry type, there are always the same kinds of contaminants, in the same kinds of wastewater volumes. For example, for diamond mines, ammonia is a major contaminant, for municipal wastewater, e.coli is a major contaminant etc.
There are a few examples of this in Canada and many in the US. To determine the best “practical” treatment - a specific industry, for example, metal mining, is surveyed for what type of treatment technology they apply and how well it works. Then an industry norm or standard are defined. All industries are then asked to line up with this standard. The US EPA, for example, publishes an extensive list of the best practical treatment technologies for many industries. In Canada, so far we have only done it for metal mining and the pulp and paper industry although work is underway on developing bpt’s for municipal waste.
However, the process of setting industry-specific effluent quality criteria takes a long time – the MMER’s took over 10 years – and many of the relevant industries in the NWT have not been established yet.

10. Discussion Paper: Towards the development of northern water standards
Option 1: Establishing uniform water quality objectives
Option 2: Establishing industry-specific effluent quality criteria.
Option 3: Establish a process or procedure for defining the above that can be consistently applied but on a case-by-case basis
So far I have discussed two of the options put forward in the paper. Each has specific benefits with respect to increasing certainty. Each though also has a long time line associated with it because of all the work that would need to be done to follow through with them.
The third option is to establish a process or procedure for defining the above that can be consistently applied but on a case-by-case basis.
So, what do we mean by that?

11. Option 3: Establish a Framework for Deriving and Applying Project-Specific Effluent Quality Criteria
Long Range Vision for Water Quality
Water Quality Policy
(To clearly articulate what factors will be considered in the final decision making)
Option 3:…
What if we started by articulating a our long term vision for water quality in the NWT? What do we want the water quality to be for the next generation? A long range vision can range from “whatever happens, happens” to “I want people 10 generations from now to still be able to drink the water”. Even making this clear statement alone would go a long way to clarifying to proponents what we are about up here. And this kind of vision has been stated by different people, from different communities or groups many times over the last several years at various public hearings and the like. But it would be better if we could agree on a common vision and then state it up front to potential developers.
The next question is: “ how am I going to make that vision happen?” . So a Water Quality Policy is needed. This policy will clearly articulte what factors will be considered in the final decision making on a permit application – again, lets lay out in advance in what way the proponent will be judged. For example, lets tell them that we will be considering best treatment technologies and tell them what criteria we will use to determine what “best” means. Lets tell them that we will also be we want to know what the possible best practices for treatment of their waste isOk, I have said that in order to set end of pipe limits we need science/tk plus an agreed upon set of water quality objectives and an agreement on what constitutes a best practice for treatment technology. And I have said that defining one set of best practices and/or one set of water quality objectives is really not something we can achieve in the near future. But maybe it would be enough to
Now, this approach does not provide proponents with information on the specific conditions they will have to meet – but it does provide them for the “rules of engagement” or how their applications will be judged. Plus, a proponent should be able to follow along with the established procedures in order to find their own answers prior to even applying. Determining the water quality conditions that must be maintained outside of the initial dilution zone.- combined with the information on the water body properties and the industry properties, the will likely be able to assess the potential impacts onf the project and to determine the level of treatment required to mitigate those impacts.
Best Technology
(where “best” is what is possible? feasible? affordable?
Water Quality Objective
(to protect all aquatic life? drinking water?) (dilution zone?)
And/Or

12. Utility of a Water Quality Policy: Example
Best Practices
Water quality objectives
Protection of Aquatic Life
Panel of Industry Experts: what is feasible?
National water quality guidelines (e.g., CCME)
Now, this approach does not provide proponents with information on the specific conditions they will have to meet – but it does provide them for the “rules of engagement” or how their applications will be judged. Plus, a proponent should be able to follow along with the established procedures in order to find their own answers prior to even applying. Determining the water quality conditions that must be maintained outside of the initial dilution zone.- combined with the information on the water body properties and the industry properties, the will likely be able to assess the potential impacts onf the project and to determine the level of treatment required to mitigate those impacts.
End of pipe limits

13. Development of a Water Quality Policy to Guide Decision Making
Water quality objective:
protect aquatic life (at a minimum)
minimize contamination
Best practices and/or treatment technology:
consider what is possible
understand what is feasible
balance cost to proponent with benefit to environment
High light ecosystem – as receiving environment as opposed to just what is happening at the end of pipe.
Articulate: the balance we want to strike between economic development and environmental protection

14. Where to from here?
“In consultation with the boards, develop water standards and set them out in codes, guidelines, policy, or regulations as best fits the need.”
Steps?
Distribute discussion paper
INAC offers to meet with individual Boards to discuss options
Tell us what option(s) you favour
Have a formal collective discussion at next Board forum
High light ecosystem – as receiving environment as opposed to just what is happening at the end of pipe.

15. Questions? David Livingstone Indian and Northern Affairs NWT-Region
High light ecosystem – as receiving environment as opposed to just what is happening at the end of pipe.

16. Definition of “water standards”
stand·ard    –noun
- something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model
- a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment:
an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc
.standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable
High light ecosystem – as receiving environment as opposed to just what is happening at the end of pipe.