Water Shortage Response Plan - Metro Vancouver

Water Shortage Response Plan Fall 2015 Consultation Report

Table of Contents

1. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Background .................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Consultation Program Objectives ............................................................................................. 5

4. Consultation Process and Components .................................................................................. 5

4.1 Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................................. 6

4.2 Engagement Activities ........................................................................................................ 6

5. Consultation Feedback and Recommendations .................................................................... 7

5.1 Local Governments – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 .................................................... 7

5.2 Local Governments – Recommendations for Improving the WSRP............................ 8

5.3 Businesses – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 ................................................................... 8

5.4 Businesses – Recommendations for Improving the WSRP .......................................... 9

5.5 Residents – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 ..................................................................... 9

5.6 Residents – Recommendations for Improving the WSRP .......................................... 10

6. Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 10

2

DRAFT Water Shortage Response Plan 2015 Consultation Report

1. Summary From November 2015 to February 2016, Metro Vancouver initiated a consultation program to learn about what people experienced during the water restrictions in the summer of 2015, to better understand the impacts of the restrictions and listen to people’s recommendations for how the Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) could be improved.

Consultation activities included meetings, focus groups, workshops, conference calls, one-on-one interviews, and an online questionnaire for public feedback. Emails, phone calls and letters received were also reviewed and are reflected in the summary of feedback in this report.

Metro Vancouver consulted with representatives of member local governments, businesses and residents. A summary of the discussions and recommendations for action from each group is below.

Summary of discussions with local government representatives:

• There were many issues and concerns regarding the definition of terms and plan clarity (e.g. sprinkling versus watering, the definition of minimal watering, outdoor versus indoor car washing, etc.)

• Widespread European Chafer beetle problems were believed to be further exacerbated during the fall of 2015 because people were unable to apply nematode treatment when the region moved to Stage 3 restrictions

• Public scrutiny of local government operations, such as watering medians, sports fields and new trees, and street sweeping resulted in loss of landscape assets due to not recognizing the importance and value of these activities

• The regulations were enforced inconsistently and the varied fine structures across the region created confusion and frustration for residents

• Because of the large number of tickets issued, many local governments had to deal with unexpected adjudication hearings for tickets in the fall

• Local government staff explained they require between 48 to 72 hours to implement the Stage change in order for the change to be communicated effectively

To strengthen and contribute to a shared understanding of the WSRP across the region, local governments suggested Metro Vancouver should:

• Revise plan wording to better define certain terms

• Describe the rationale for triggering a new stage of restrictions

• Explain the purpose and objectives of each stage

• Support consistency of monitoring and enforcement across all local governments

Summary of discussions with business representatives:

• Some industries reported they were vilified by the public due to campaign messages and media stories focused on shaming water users

3


• Industries reported a significant loss of revenue due to a limited ability to conduct business which trickled down to supporting industries, such as equipment suppliers

• There was some loss of landscaping assets including trees, shrubs, and other vegetation

• Residents confronted businesses using water even if it was allowed under the restrictions

Business representatives recommended that Metro Vancouver should:

• Work with industry to draft regulations that are both feasible for industry and achieve the WSRP goals

• Work with industry to draft communication and education materials for residents to educate them on effective lawn and landscaping watering techniques

• Provide early communication about stage activation that could help industry be prepared (e.g. landscapers could change irrigation timers, golf courses could lay down wetting agents, inform customers, etc.)

• Provide a rationale for how a new stage is activated

• Apply restrictions fairly to all businesses

Summary of feedback from residents:

• People found it difficult to determine what kinds of water uses were permitted in each stage

• People lost landscape assets such as trees, hedges, and lawns either due to restrictions on watering or because of the European Chafer beetle infestation

• People lost their investment in nematode treatment and/or new lawn when exemption permits were discontinued in Stage 3

• People suggested Metro Vancouver should expand its water supply infrastructure instead of restricting water use

• Many people practice water conservation year round and were not affected by the restrictions

• There was support for increased restrictions to conserve drinking water

• There was support for earlier implementation of the water restrictions

Residents recommended that:

• Metro Vancouver should clarify that the time for watering does not mean people should water for the entire duration of that time

• Metro Vancouver should provide clearer definitions of terms in the Water Shortage Response Plan

• There should be consistent enforcement across the region with harsher fines

4


• There should be consistent messaging across media platforms and websites

• Communication materials and media releases should more clearly articulate what is and is not permitted in each stage

• Metro Vancouver should use more social media to raise awareness when moving to a new stage and to communicate about the relevant restrictions

• Metro Vancouver should promote public education on water conservation and make it a year-round effort

• Metro Vancouver should explain the rationale behind the restrictions and demonstrate how they are fact-based

• Metro Vancouver should promote the use of water conservation tool

2. Background The unprecedented dry and hot summer of 2015 prompted the enactment of Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) Stages 2 and 3 restrictions early on in the summer for the first time since 2003. Metro Vancouver and member local governments received thousands of inquiries from citizens and businesses regarding clarifications on the intentions of the plan, enforcement, and restricted uses. Many people also had concerns regarding the fairness of the plan, the capability of the Metro Vancouver system to meet demand because of population increase and climate change, and its ability to respond to shortages.

In order to get a better understanding of the impacts of the WSRP, especially the implementation of Stages 2 and 3 restrictions during the summer of 2015, Metro Vancouver implemented a four-month consultation strategy with stakeholders including: member local governments’ staff, internal staff, industry, businesses and the public. The goal of the consultation program was to support the development of a new WSRP for 2017 using input from those stakeholders.

3. Consultation Program Objectives

The objectives of the WSRP consultation program were to:

• Consult with stakeholders on the issues and concerns resulting from implementing the WSRP in 2015

• Identify challenges and opportunities related to enforcing and complying with the various stages of the WSRP

• Collect feedback from stakeholders on suggested changes or adjustments to the WSRP

• Inform the development of a revised WSRP to submit to the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) Board for approval for 2017 implementation

4. Consultation Process and Components The consultation and communication program reflects Metro Vancouver’s commitment to consult with members of the public, industry, business, and government on proposed regulations, projects and initiatives.

5


4.1 Stakeholder Groups • The consultation program provided stakeholders a chance to comment on their experiences with the

water restrictions and provide recommendations for developing a new WSRP. Stakeholders consisted of local government staff, representatives from the private sector and members of the public.

4.2 Engagement Activities Consultation activities included a workshop, focus groups, one-on-one interviews and a public questionnaire. A description of each activity is provided below.

A. Member Local Government Staff Workshop

Through weekly WSRP coordination conference calls over summer 2015 with members of the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee - Water Subcommittee and the Municipal Water Conservation Coordinators Committee and at a Member Local Government Staff workshop, Metro Vancouver discussed a number of impacts resulting from the implementation of the WSRP Stages 2 and 3 restrictions during 2015 and listened to recommendations for how the WSRP could be improved. The workshop was attended by 27 local government staff from Parks, Bylaw Enforcement, Engineering, and Communications, representing 12 local government members as well as the City of Abbotsford.

Meeting Date Stakeholder Group Representatives

December 1, 2015 Pressure washers and window cleaners

9 participants representing 7 local businesses

December 8, 2015 Golf and turf industry 11 participants representing 2 associations and 7 local businesses

December 10, 2015 Pool and Hot Tub Council of Canada

One-on-one interview with local business owner as representative of the Council

December 11, 2015 Landscape and nurseries industries

8 participants representing one association, one local university, and 6 local businesses

December 14, 2015 Irrigation industry 5 participants representing one association and 4 local businesses

December 17, 2015 Turf farm one-on-one interview with local turf farm business

Table 1. Consultation Meetings Details

6


B. Industry Focus Groups and Interviews

To understand the nature of the restriction impacts on industry, Metro Vancouver reviewed correspondence and held focus groups and one-on-one interviews with representatives from the following industries:

• pressure washing and window cleaning

• golf and turf

• pools and spas

• landscaping and nurseries

• irrigation

A total of 35 people representing 26 local businesses, five business associations, and one local university participated in the focus groups and meetings. A summary of those is provided in Table 1.

C. Public Questionnaire and Feedback

• Metro Vancouver reviewed and considered the feedback received from the public through the local governments and the Metro Vancouver Information Centre over the summer months. Metro Vancouver also developed and promoted an online questionnaire for public feedback. The questionnaire link was distributed through multiple channels including the Metro Vancouver website and local government websites. Throughout the summer and fall of 2015, Metro Vancouver received over 1600 inquiries about the WSRP and 85 completed online questionnaires.

5. Consultation Feedback and Recommendations

5.1 Local Governments – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 Local government staff expressed that a lack of definition and clarity in the plan was a cause of confusion and concern for staff, businesses and residents alike, which hindered staff’s ability to provide timely responses to questions and concerns, and to resolve issues. For example, people were unclear about the difference between: sprinkling and watering; drip irrigation and soaker hoses; what qualifies as a health and safety reason for pressure washing; and indoor versus outdoor car washing. Staff also reported they were unable to respond to a significant number of questions related to the rationale behind restricting certain water uses and the triggers for moving from one stage to another.

Public scrutiny of local government operations, for example, watering medians, sports fields, new trees, and street sweeping, resulted in operational problems and damage to some assets. Local government staff refrained from using water for uses allowed in the WSRP due to public concern over what they perceived as water waste. It is important to address the public’s lack of understanding of the importance and value of these activities to properly maintain and preserve public assets.

Local governments also reported that European Chafer beetle problems, which were widespread in the fall of 2015, could have been further exacerbated because the window to apply nematode treatment was missed when the region moved to Stage 3 restrictions by the end of July 2015.

7


Local government staff noted the plan, supporting materials, and communication activities could more clearly describe the purpose and objectives of each stage to help clarify the intent of the restrictions. For example, they suggested it is not broadly known that Stage 1 restrictions are focused on water conservation compared with Stages 2 and 3 which are designed to respond to a shortage, and Stage 4 which is designed specifically to respond to a shortage caused by an emergency situation.

Concerns were also raised about the timing related to Metro Vancouver’s new stage announcements over the summer of 2015 – it did not allow local governments enough time to implement the Stage change. Local governments normally require 48 to 72 hours to implement the change.

A common concern was the inconsistency amongst local governments related to monitoring and enforcing the restrictions. Several staff noted each local government takes a different approach, and this is confusing and difficult to explain to residents and businesses. Additionally, local governments who issued a large number of tickets had to deal with many adjudication hearings in the fall for disputed tickets.

5.2 Local Governments – Recommendations for Improving the WSRP To strengthen and contribute to a shared understanding of the WSRP across the region, local governments suggested Metro Vancouver should:

• Revise plan wording to better define certain terms

• Describe the rationale behind decision making for triggering each stage

• Explain the purpose and objectives of each stage

• Support consistency of monitoring and enforcement across all local governments

They also suggested Metro Vancouver revise the At-a-Glance document to be more clear, consistent and easy to understand.

Staff also urged Metro Vancouver to increase and broaden efforts related to promoting and educating residents and businesses about water conservation and how the water system works.

5.3 Businesses – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 While the magnitude of the impacts varied from one industry to the next, all representatives reported enduring financial hardship because of the restrictions. Representatives from the pressure washing industry explained how they needed to lay off staff and lost business totalling over a third of their annual revenue. They noted layoffs meant some employees were unable to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, when pressure washers were seen working even when allowed under the plan, many reported being confronted by people who believed they were operating illegally.

Participants from the pressure washing, golf and turf industries were concerned about negative public perception of their services because of some campaign messages and the framing of media coverage.

Representatives from the landscaping sector reported they were able to diversify their business enough to keep it going through the summer months and stated they would be unable to maintain current staffing levels if there was another water shortage in Summer 2016.

8


Focus group participants from all sectors wanted to know Metro Vancouver’s rationale for restricting a particular water use. They already employ management practices and technologies that efficiently conserve water, since this is in the best interest of their bottom line. They expressed they felt unfairly targeted without justification and without recognition of how the restrictions and negative publicity would significantly affect their ability to conduct business and earn a living.

5.4 Businesses – Recommendations for Improving the WSRP Representatives from all the sectors consulted urged Metro Vancouver to review targeted water uses to ensure it has an accurate understanding of how much water is used, and whether the technologies and practices in place achieve conservation and efficiency goals without negatively impacting an industry’s economic well-being. For example, the golf and turf industries suggested more water would be conserved if they were required to reduce water use by a pre-determined percentage rather than specifying when watering can occur.

Industry representatives stated they recognize the need for water restrictions during a shortage, but would value the opportunity to work with Metro Vancouver as it updates the plan to find solutions that achieve plan goals, while allowing businesses to continue to operate.

5.5 Residents – Impacts of the WSRP in 2015 A review of over 1600 inquiries made through Metro Vancouver’s Information Centre and the feedback from the online questionnaire showed many people required additional information and clearer definition related to several aspects of the plan. For example, people were unclear as to the difference between: commercial and residential water uses, health and safety uses, definition of drip irrigation, indoor versus outdoor car washing, and sprinkling versus watering.

A significant number of people called both local governments and the Metro Vancouver Information Centre to report water use violations and wanted to know what could be done to enforce the restrictions more consistently and effectively.

Social media campaigns to shame violators using the #grasshole hashtag emerged on Twitter and many people called for more severe penalties for anyone caught using water illegally. Some people suggested the negative tone of messages was not helpful and made people angry instead of wanting to conserve water.

While many people were supportive of the restrictions and an increase in water conservation measures, others suggested there would be no need to be so restrictive if Metro Vancouver accessed and increased the supply of water available and the storage capacity. Many people also felt that water conservation should be a year-round initiative rather than only a focus in the summer months or in times of drought.

Several people noted brown lawns did not recover and attracted European Chafer beetle infestations. Many respondents were concerned about the permanent loss of plants and trees they had purchased and/or cared for over several years.

Many people reported they went above and beyond the restrictions to conserve water both indoors and outdoors and used the drought as an opportunity to teach their children about water conservation. Several respondents noted the restrictions did not affect them since they use less water during the summer months anyway.

9


5.6 Residents – Recommendations for improving the WSRP An analysis of the feedback received revealed many people are in favour of increasing the restrictions to conserve drinking water and would support earlier implementation of the restrictions. Many people suggested Metro Vancouver should explain that the time period (e.g. between 4:00 am to 9:00 am) for watering does not mean people should water lawns continuously for five hours. The majority of respondents suggested those who illegally watered outside of the allotted time should face higher fines and more severe penalties as this would deter people from violating the water restrictions. These respondents also suggested having more bylaw officers patrolling at different times of the day and making note of lawns that were suspiciously green.

The significant number of questions related to what kinds of water uses were allowed in each stage may suggest communication materials and media releases could more clearly articulate what is allowed and not allowed in each stage. Many people reported discrepancies in messaging between the media and the various local governments, or that they were not aware of the change in restrictions until weeks after they had been announced. To avoid these problems, promoting water restriction guidelines and the announcement of new stages through social media with more advanced notice was recommended.

Feedback indicated public education on how to conserve water would be beneficial. Many people said they would like the restrictions to be based on facts and metrics, and that they would like to have the reasons for restrictions explained, as well as know what the consequences would be if there were no restrictions. This suggests a shift in perception is needed to view water as a valuable resource and encourage conservation.

In addition to public education, a number of residents stated they would like to see local governments promoting more water conservation tools. This included offering shower timers, rain barrels, installing water meters and grey water systems in an effort to conserve potable water.

6. Next Steps Metro Vancouver is reviewing and considering the feedback and recommendations received and is conducting a technical study to develop a new Water Shortage Response Plan for implementation in the summer of 2017.

Staff will bring recommendations to the Utilities Committee and the GVWD Board for consideration in the fall of 2016.

10

Water Shortage Response Plan - Metro Vancouver

Documents

Transcript of Water Shortage Response Plan - Metro Vancouver