Skip to main content

Changing Currents: A Case Study in the Evolution of Water Law in Western Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Water Policy and Governance in Canada

Part of the book series: Global Issues in Water Policy ((GLOB,volume 17))

Abstract

New social, economic and environmental priorities are challengeing the Canadian water law regime. Water law in western Canada, a direct product of the colonial legal system and European settlement, illustrates many of the emerging tensions associated with a modern water management regime in flux. In an age of increasing hydrologic uncertainty with drier summers followed by more extreme storm events, lawmakers are seeking to increase resilience both for the environment and also for the institutions and the laws that govern freshwater resources. In Canada evidence of an evolving water law and management regime is already apparent—from developments in Aboriginal law that are changing how and who governs water, retreat by the federal government as an active participant in water resource management, to increased provincial efforts to fill that void.This chapter explains the structure and foundations of Canada’s approach to water law, in particular in western Canada; and explores how water law is changing, and what this reveals about the potential of a twenty-first century approach to water management and governance. It will explicitly review the primary allocation regimes that exist across Canada: modified common law riparian rights in the Maritime provinces and Ontario; Quebec’s civil law tradition; the authority management approach in the North; and the prior allocation system that underpins the prairie provinces and British Columbia. Through this discussion the chapter will set out the foundational principles that characterize the current approach to western water law. Investigation into the recent law reform in British Columbia provides the focus to better understand Canadian western water law and to identify characteristics of an emerging regime based on partnership and with an explicit emphasis on protecting water for nature. This case study explores how modern water governance requires a more collaborative approach where all governments, rights holders, and stakeholders have roles and responsibilities, with creative integration of top-down and bottom-up planning and decision-making. The example of British Columbia demonstrates how this water law regime is “changing the current”—evolving gradually toward a more collaborative and adaptable system with the promise of its new Water Sustainability Act.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, section 5(1) of British Columbia ’s Water Sustainability Act (2014) contains the Crown ownership provision stating “The property in and the right to the use and flow of all the water at any time in a stream in British Columbia are for all purposes vested in the government, except only insofar as private rights have been established under authorizations.”

  2. 2.

    For example, Interprovincial Co-operatives v. Manitoba (1975) stands for the principle that interprovincial pollution of fisheries is a matter falling under the federal power over POGG.

  3. 3.

    In R. v. Hydro-Québec (1997), the S.C.C. decided that the federal government has the authority to pass legislation that criminalizes harm to the environment, which can often relate to water or water bodies. In other words, the protection of the environment may constitute a criminal law purpose under Part 3 of the criminal law test.

  4. 4.

    Providing liberty to extract, but not a right to prevent others from doing the same. See, for example, Acton v. Blundell (1843), and Chasemore v. Richards (1859) where groundwater law was based on the rule of capture (fundamentally a no-liability rule).

  5. 5.

    Many water law scholars maintain that no true western water law exists in Canada, that Saskatchewan has not followed this kind of water law tradition for decades, and that all the other western provinces have modified it extensively; however, it is our viewpoint that these general principles and underpinnings do still exist and reveal important patterns in the evolution of law and governance , thus western water law still provides a useful framework.

  6. 6.

    Prior allocation is the Canadian system and is distinguished from the western US system of prior appropriation. In Canada the priority date is based on the date at which the senior government granted permission, while the US system is predicated on the date of first use, or when the water was first appropriated.

  7. 7.

    The need for the Province to work with First Nations in a meaningful way that respects their constitutionally protected rights is clearly illustrated in the British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board’s September 2015 decision to revoke Nexen Inc’s water licence in part because the Province failed to consult in good faith with the Fort Nelson First Nation. See Chief Gale and the Fort Nelson First Nation v. Assistant Regional Water Manager (2012).

  8. 8.

    No colonial court has recognized a specific Aboriginal water right, but courts have acknowledged rights to conditions that support Aboriginal water rights , such as the right to fish.

  9. 9.

    The US Indian reserved rights doctrine (Winter’s Doctrine) addresses this concern to some extent. It arises from a 1908 Supreme Court case that recognized an implied federal reserve right to water in a sufficient amount to fulfill the purpose of Indian reservations (see Brooks 2005) There is no legal principle that mirrors this protection for basic water entitlements for Indigenous people in Canada.

  10. 10.

    British Columbia ’s Northeast Water Strategy articulates one approach to this partnership concept. Unified water stewardship is one of the Strategy’s core principles. This includes co-stewardship of water resources with First Nations and other partners, and also sharing of knowledge, research, and data between partners and between other overlapping water management activities in the region. (British Columbia 2015).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver M. Brandes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brandes, O.M., Curran, D. (2017). Changing Currents: A Case Study in the Evolution of Water Law in Western Canada. In: Renzetti, S., Dupont, D. (eds) Water Policy and Governance in Canada. Global Issues in Water Policy, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42806-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics