Commentary

Whose water is it anyway?

by Brian Sterling

Here we are with another round of District meetings over and again. These meetings highlight one of the strengths of the MCPA - they provide a forum for producers to express their views and an opportunity to vote for someone to represent the producers of each area.
Most times, these meetings reveal some local concerns and this year was no exception. Some concerns span many districts. Overall concerns include low prices and lacklustre government support toward the industry, the TB issue and environmental policies and regulations. One concern that spanned all districts this year was water - too much in the north and not enough in the south.

Let’s talk about the south, specifically District 1 which encompasses much of the Oak Lake Aquifer system. Have you heard this said:

“The water level in the Oak Lake Aquifer hasn’t changed in 100 years.”
A statement like this is routinely made by so-called experts in the area of water management. The history of other aquifers around the world reveals this to be a hugely irresponsible statement. Watersheds change as the cities grow and expand. Towns worldwide continue to pollute our river systems with their waste and there is a significant increase in interest by these same cities and towns to search for cleaner water sources. This cleaner water source is increasingly becoming the aquifer systems within our provinces and countries.

It is true that our valuable water resources are owned by the public in general. That is the way it should be. However, when cities and towns exercise the right to source clean water, most people are either unaware or could care less about the sacrifices that are made by rural community that inhabits the area. Livestock producers are relegated to the bottom of the list of priorities and the first to be cut off if the water table drops.

Provincial rules and regulations applied to the point source area supplying water for the public are more stringent than point sources supplying the farming community.
Take the Ontario example where regulations limit or eliminate the use of the land surrounding the point source. This area is expanding yearly and is rendered nearly worthless.

And who is responsible for maintaining the watershed area that recharges the aquifer? Again, the ag sector - especially the livestock industry is called upon to provide knowledge and labour to maintain the watershed area so that the urban areas can suck from the aquifer to water lawns, fill their pools, clean the streets, flush toilets - all of this water ends up back in the river system keeping the pollution cycle going.
Delayed and rotational grazing, maintaining and improving native and tame pastures and growing forages on sensitive lands are all practises that ensure that the watershed is capable of recharging the aquifer.

This is an essential service, but difficult to measure in terms of dollar value for the service provided by the livestock industry to the public. At the very least, this service should be recognized and the MCPA is working on seeing to it that happens.

- Brian Sterling is Chairman of the MCPA Environment committee.