Lack of Government Support

The lack of potable water in rural communities has been problematic for many decades and has been a constant news item in the press for a decade or so. Much of the press, deservedly so, has focused on the supply of potable water to First Nations communities. This pressing issue is being addressed, perhaps a bit slowly, by the Federal Government who has sole jurisdiction over the issue.

Less well publicized are the potable water related infrastructure issues facing those that reside in Improvement Districts (IDs) in BC and the role the Provincial government has played in restricting bringing potable water to these communities. The following gives background into this issue and offers potential solutions that will bring potable water and updated infrastructure to those residing in the IDs of the Province.

Types of Local Government

Currently, there are three types of local government in BC, Municipalities, Regional Districts (RDs) and Improvement Districts (IDs – currently numbering close to 200). Municipalities were first formed in late 1880s while IDs were first introduced in the 1920s and RDs introduced in 1965. IDs are limited in their responsibilities and mostly oversee the provision of potable water, fire protection, irrigation street lighting and/or garbage collection to their residents. Over 85 % of the IDs in the Province are responsible for the provision of potable water as stated in their Letters Patent. Municipal and RDs governments have more responsibilities.

Attempted Elimination of Improvement Districts

Upon formation of RDs, and review of local governance in BC, the Provincial Government implemented a policy to eliminate IDs, having them subsumed into the appropriate RD or municipality The rationale provided by the government include that RDs and municipalities, compared to IDs, have more robust legislation, have broader and integrated powers, are more accountable and have better access to funding. The first three of these can be debated and it is ironic that it is the Government’s own policy, restricting Provincial funding from being used by IDs to build or upgrade infrastructure, is a major factor in IDs having very limited access to funding.

IDs are Cost Effective Government

While it can be said that there are perhaps too many and overlapping forms of local government in BC, the arguments provided to discount the usefulness of IDs is disingenuous at best. The governance of IDs is overseen by Provincial Government. They have elected officials, open meeting, annual general meeting, are audited and can borrow funds. The recent involvement of the Government having to step into several municipalities in the Province indicates that its not the form of local government that is important, but the individuals involved. It should also be noted that IDs, whose elected officials are volunteers, are the most cost-effective form of local government in the Province. In fact, several IDs in the Province have rejected the notion of incorporation in part due results of cost benefit analysis.

Unfair Persuasion Tactics

The BC Government has had a vision of only supporting two forms of local government, municipalities and RDs, for three or so decades. Instead of mandating the dissolution of IDs the Government stated that they encourage IDs to voluntarily transfer their assets (acquired for over a century in some cases and worth several millions of dollars) and services to municipalities or RDs. In order to “persuade” IDs to voluntarily transfer their assets and services to other forms of government the Province has made them ineligible to receive provincial grants that support capital infrastructure projects unless they “voluntarily” transfer of all their assets. In order to further support the Government’s argument, UBCM suggested that having IDs eligible for provincial infrastructure grants would double the oversubscribed funding program.

Rural Discrimination

Should any resident of BC be discriminated against from a human right, such as having access to potable drinking water, because of where they live? Rather, major infrastructure grants should be awarded based on the merits and outcomes of the projects. Basically, the Province is holding the residents of IDs hostage. For instance, if the IDs want potable water they must give up their autonomy and transfer their entire assets and services to another form of local government. These transfers would lead to loss of autonomy of the ID residents, loss of local employee positions, increased costs to the residents for providing the same services, less responsiveness, and loss of ownership of their entire capital infrastructure, built up over several decades. More importantly, this policy is also delaying acquisition and upgrades of water treatment and distribution systems, thus creating health concerns and increasing the eventual and inevitable costs of the projects. It is this outcome that makes the transfer of services of IDs to recipient local governments very unattractive, and becoming more so as the infrastructure of IDs are being allowed to deteriorate due to Government decree.

Change is Needed and Long Overdue

Moving forward, it is time to revisit a policy that has existed for over three decades and has been resisted by over 200 IDs.  A first simple step is to allow IDs to compete for provincial infrastructure grants.  A longer term and more general review might assess why IDs, especially in isolated places with smaller populations have worked well for so long, and resist joining a larger regional district.