Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Insightrix Research Inc. | 1-3223 Millar Ave | Saskatoon, SK S7K 5Y3
P: (306) 657-5640 | E: [email protected] | W: insightrix.com
November, 2014
AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE POLICY RESEARCH
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY BACKGROUND
The Water Security Agency (WSA) has been tasked with leading delivery of the 25-Year Saskatchewan
Water Security Plan. A key element of this plan relates to the drainage of water on agricultural lands. To
collect input from stakeholders within the agricultural community, the WSA undertook an extensive public
engagement process. The WSA hired Insightrix Research to manage the public engagement process as it
relates to the drainage of water on agricultural lands.
Three significant activities were undertaken as part of this public engagement process:
1) the development of an online community for stakeholders to contribute their thoughts on specific
issues surrounding agricultural drainage
2) an in-person meeting with select online community members and WSA representatives
3) a telephone and online survey of stakeholders to measure support of proposed policy principles
The target audiences for this engagement process included farmers, local government representatives
(elected officials), representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Conservation and
Development Area Authorities (CAAs), Watershed Associations, and interested parties from the general
public. The scope of this study included Saskatchewan residents only. A total of 491 individuals joined the
online community which was active from October 2013 to April 2014. A total of eight individuals attended
the in-person session which was held in Saskatoon on February 6th
, 2014 and 480 individuals participated
in the quantitative survey which was in field between April 7th
and April 21st, 2014. Unless otherwise
specified, any data presented using percentages originates from the quantitative research study.
CURRENT LANDSCAPE
The quantitative research shows that most respondents (87%) support the act of draining water off of
agricultural land. Most farmers (78%) are impacted by agricultural drainage in some way and four in ten
farmers (40%) self-report engaging in such draining activities themselves (as high as 68% among
members of the online panel). Three in ten of those surveyed (28%) have been involved in a drainage
complaint.
More than one half (55%) of survey respondents feel the current agricultural drainage policy is not
effective and nearly nine in ten (87%) believe it is important for a new policy to be developed. This
suggests that most stakeholders are open to and are ready for a change.
ii
POLICY COMPONENTS
Through the research, many specific topics regarding a new policy were addressed. A draft policy outline
prepared by the WSA was used as a guide for much of the engagement process. A summary of
stakeholder sentiments with respect to each of these components is outlined below:
Drainage Rights
Stakeholders largely agree that drainage is not a landowner right and if specific impacts cannot
be mitigated then drainage activities should not be allowed.
Project Risk
Stakeholders universally support tying regulations to the risk involved in a drainage activity, with
the most risky projects requiring greater scrutiny and public input through an online engagement
process. However, stakeholders find it difficult to pinpoint the exact factors that determine project
risk. Broad-level criteria identified include reasons for water buildup, volume of water being
released, how the release of water will be controlled, anticipated negative consequences of
releasing the water, cumulative effects of releasing the water, and the reasons why water is being
released in the first place. It is likely that the WSA will need to develop its own detailed criteria to
determine risk and create categories of risk that stakeholders will need to follow.
Stakeholders agree that projects deemed to be of high risk should require approval, while mixed
opinions exist with respect to low-risk projects. Roughly equal proportions believe low-risk
projects should require approval, simply be registered with the WSA, or be allowed to proceed
without notifying the government at all. Farmers are more likely to support the latter option than
are non-farmers (33% vs. 13%, respectively).
Enforcement of policy principles and approaches regardless of project size is strongly encouraged
by stakeholders.
Project Cost Responsibilities
Stakeholders largely support the philosophy that those who benefit from drainage projects
should bear the costs for building and maintaining such projects. Opinions differ somewhat with
respect to division of costs among all parties involved – ranging from everyone having an equal
share to prorating fees based on benefits received.
Further, there is strong support for project owners bearing the costs of damages they cause,
particularly with projects that are not approved and/or registered with the WSA. Special
circumstances are advised in cases of significant weather-related events such as flooding.
Existing Activities
iii
A majority of stakeholders believe that existing works that have not been approved by the
government should either require approval or registration consistent with new projects within a
reasonable timeframe or should simply be registered with the government through an online
process. Very few believe existing non-approved projects should be allowed to continue without
any approval or registration.
Stakeholder-recommended considerations when evaluating existing activities that have not
caused negative impacts include ensuring farmers are not penalized for past drainage activities,
allowing such projects to continue operating while they are being reviewed/approved, allowing
farmers a reasonable amount of time to address any deficiencies noted during the
review/approval process, and providing resources to assist the farmer with meeting the
requirements for their existing projects.
Approval Criteria
Stakeholders are supportive of requiring applicants to follow specific design and operation
standards and rules. Further, they largely support project organizers being required to repair any
damages they may cause. Fewer, however, are supportive of having private, qualified
professionals approve drainage works.
Specific criteria that stakeholders deemed important in allowing drainage to proceed include
consideration of upstream and downstream impacts, impact on flow rates within the system,
erosion potential, short-term and long-term impact, evidence of affected parties working
together, and the ease and ability for the project to be monitored by an independent body.
Wetlands Management
Wetlands management is a sensitive topic with stakeholders. While many support the notion of
maintaining some wetlands, others are opposed to the notion. Specifically, the effort to farm
around potholes and larger wetlands that could be converted to farmland strikes at the heart of
one’s philosophy regarding land use. Farmers are less likely to support the notion of retaining all
wetlands as compared to non-farmers (57% agree vs. 73% agree, respectively).
Some farmers indicate they choose to forego farming land that is considered wetlands while
others feel that they should receive some form of incentive or compensation to retain the
wetlands and offset the opportunity cost of using the land for producing crops. There is also
some opposition to imposing rules requiring that certain amounts of wetlands be maintained.
In light of the diverging opinions, it is likely that building consensus will be difficult.
Certification and Education
Stakeholders frequently mention that education is essential to ensuring that farmers follow the
proper procedures and are aware of the risks and liabilities with conducting drainage activities.
iv
As a case in point, only 44% of survey respondents are aware that all drainage activities currently
require provincial government approval.
Stakeholders expect the government to provide relevant reference materials to guide them
through new policy requirements. Some also appear open to attending in-person orientation
sessions.
The notion of certifying or licensing individuals to be allowed to conduct drainage activities was
met with mixed reviews. While some endorse the idea, likening it to obtaining a driver’s licence
prior to operating a vehicle, others feel that landowner behaviour may not change regardless of
the implementation of a licensing system.
It is believed that a licensing system would be most effective if the WSA or another agency
actively enforce the system. Others also anticipate a licensing system could prove costly and yield
only a marginal benefit.
Despite the above opinions, modest support for fast-tracking approvals of low-risk projects for
those who are licensed is noted.
Local Water Boards
During the online and in-person discussions, it was suggested that local bodies, termed “water
boards” by these stakeholders, be created to deal with localized drainage issues. Several benefits
for this type of autonomous organization were cited including knowledge of local terrain and
watersheds, the ability to administer local policies (such as approval and compliance), and faster
decision-making.
However, several disadvantages were also noted including lack of knowledge about drainage, lack
of qualified representatives to sit on the board, local conflicts of interest, potential duplication
with existing organizations, and more red tape.
While many see merit in the local water board concept, further thought and investigation are
advised before pursuing the idea.
Management of Areas with Extensive Drainage
In areas with extensive drainage issues, there is broad-level support for government intervention
to require the formation of organized drainage authorities. However, there are also strong
advocates who oppose any form of forced government intervention. Specifically, farmers are less
likely to support the notion of preventing any new drainage in these areas until such an
organization is formed, regardless of whether it is formed voluntarily or through government
intervention than are non-farmers (52% vs. 64%, respectively).
As such, the forced formation of organized drainage authorities could become very contentious in
the area affected.
v
Control Gates as a Requirement of Drainage
When presented with the notion of requiring project applicants to commit to installing control
gates as a requirement of approval for drainage activities, modest opposition was noted. The
primary concern is that control gates may not be the most effective control mechanism in every
region of the province.
Compliance and Enforcement
Calls for increased compliance and enforcement consistently arose throughout all phases of
research. Many stakeholders feel that increased efforts in this area can help reduce the frequency
of non-approved drainage and negative impacts. Commonly, individuals call for increased fines,
faster responses to complaints, such as closure of works, and faster resolution of disputes.
Stakeholders are divided on the use of a complaint-based system versus proactive enforcement
by the WSA. Farmers are more in favour of a complaint-based system (57%) while non-farmers
would prefer proactive enforcement (56%).
While opinions are divided in the compliance model used, most stakeholders support granting
the WSA powers to impose penalties, voluntary payments, notices of violation, stop work orders,
orders for closure of works, and orders for remedial action related to agricultural drainage.
With respect to a process for resolving disputes, stakeholders commonly recommend progressive
steps beginning with encouraging the affected parties to resolve the issue on their own,
mediation, and then arbitration by an independent third party.
Stakeholders are highly supportive of immediate closure of disputed works in cases where the
project has not received prior approval or registration. This was seen as a step to help motivate
farmers to register their existing works given that if a complaint is ever lodged, their project could
be shut down immediately.
Land Control Options
Stakeholders are divided with respect to land control options within a new policy regime. Many
support the notion of allowing the affected parties to strike a legal agreement regarding their
mutual drainage activities but a modest proportion feel the current registration of an easement
approach is best. The remaining minority feel it is appropriate to allow proponents to proceed
with their drainage activities without any formal agreement, as long as they are advised of the
risks in doing so.
Additional Resources
Repeatedly through the engagement process, stakeholders reported that there is an absence of
current and detailed mapping and topographical information to assist landowners, Conservation
Area Authorities (CAAs), the WSA, and other parties in planning and managing drainage.
vi
Acknowledging there are costs, many stakeholders believe it is important for the province to
invest in these areas to provide more tools to manage drainage.
Some stakeholders advise the WSA to consult with neighbouring provinces regarding their water
management practices in addition to leading-edge European countries such as the Netherlands.
Finally, it is clear that stakeholders believe the WSA is currently understaffed to effectively
manage the current policy or the new policy when it is developed.
vii
POLICY SUMMARY
The following table broadly summarizes policy concepts that were met with common agreement
(generally a majority supporting) and concepts without common agreement (either no agreement or
diverging opinions).
Policy concepts with common agreement Policy concepts without common agreement
Drainage is not a Right
If impacts can’t be mitigated, drainage should not be allowed
Proponents must be educated on best management practices around
drainage
Regulation should be tied to risk with high risk projects undergoing
more scrutiny
Specific definition of risk
Low risk projects – approval vs. registration only
Those who benefit from drainage should bear the costs of appropriate
design and management, including damage prevention and mitigation
Where drainage is allowed, drainage projects should align with
hydrological and environmental targets that reflect both local
circumstances and provincial objectives
Defining the specific targets
Approval criteria should be established Specific criteria that should be included
Existing drainage works should be addressed using the same criteria as
new projects Approval vs. registration for existing works
Wetlands should be addressed in the policy Strong opposing views on how it should be addressed
Inclusion of certification / licencing
The development of water boards
Forced compliance in areas of significant drainage issues Despite majority support, strong opposition may lead to
contention if implemented
Requiring control gates as a requirement of drainage approval
The regulatory process should remain distinct from any process related
to assessment of damages
Regulatory requirements should be put in place to minimize non-
compliance
Method of compliance administration (complaint-based vs.
proactive)
WSA having enforcement powers to address non-compliance
Parties claiming damages as a result of drainage should have adequate
access to resolution and compensation. Direct costs of the process
should be reasonably assessed to the party causing the impact
The responsibility for land control and civil liability for impacts rests
solely with project owners
Requiring the registration of an easement on title vs. legal
agreement vs. non-legal agreement
Public consultation before approval of high risk projects
viii
CONCLUSIONS
There is broad agreement with the principles and approaches that it intends to incorporate into a new
agricultural drainage policy. However, there are several unique situations throughout Saskatchewan
which means the implementation of a broad policy will most likely result in cases where the overall rule
“may not apply” or apply well in every case. Further, there are a number of stakeholders who hold very
strong opinions about their land entitlement. In addition, poor neighbour relations and poor experiences
under the existing policy will likely result in not everyone being pleased with the outcomes of a new
policy. The key will be for the WSA to take a leadership role in determining what is in the best interest for
all stakeholders while at the same time applying some flexibility for the special cases that may arise. Once
a detailed draft policy is developed, there may be value in collecting feedback from this stakeholder
group, similar to the approach used during the in person session in February. In some areas there are
differences between farmers and non-farmers; however in most cases these differences are relatively
minor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________ i
STUDY BACKGROUND _____________________________________________________________________________ 1
INTRODUCTION_______________________________________________________________________________ 1
METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________________________ 1
STUDY FINDINGS __________________________________________________________________________________ 8
CURRENT LANDSCAPE _________________________________________________________________________ 8
PERCEIVED NEED FOR A NEW AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE POLICY ________________________________ 13
NEW POLICY PRINCIPLES ____________________________________________________________________ 18
POLICY APPROACHES _______________________________________________________________________ 24
APPENDIX I – ONLINE DISCUSSION TOPICS _____________________________________________________ 46
APPENDIX II – IN-PERSON MEETING MATERIALS _______________________________________________ 49
APPENDIX III – QUESTIONNAIRE ________________________________________________________________ 52
1
STUDY BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
The Water Security Agency (WSA) has been tasked with leading delivery of the 25-Year Saskatchewan
Water Security Plan. A key element of this plan relates to the drainage of water on agricultural lands. To
collect input from stakeholders within the agricultural community, the WSA undertook an extensive public
engagement process. The WSA hired Insightrix Research to manage the public engagement process as it
relates to the drainage of water on agricultural lands.
Three significant activities were undertaken as part of this public engagement process:
1) the development of an online community for stakeholders to contribute their thoughts on specific
issues surrounding agricultural drainage
2) an in-person meeting with select online community members and WSA representatives
3) a telephone and online survey of stakeholders to measure support of proposed policy principles
This report documents the findings of these three phases of research. Due to the interrelated nature of
the topics discussed within each phase of research, the findings from all three phases have been
combined and are reported together.
METHODOLOGY
The target audiences for this engagement process included farmers, local government representatives
(elected officials), representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Conservation and
Development Area Authorities (CAAs), Watershed Associations, and interested parties from the general
public. The scope of this study included Saskatchewan residents only. The following section outlines how
the three phases of research were conducted.
ONLINE COMMUNITY
Overview
Insightrix developed an online community to collect feedback from interested stakeholders. Insightrix has
developed a proprietary software program that supports an online community for research purposes.
Stakeholders were encouraged to join the online community and offer their comments on issues and
questions posted by Insightrix moderators regarding the topic of agricultural drainage. WSA
representatives had viewer access to the discussions, but they were not able post comments and they
were not visible to community members. Members of the community were able to choose a display name
that differed from their actual name to maintain anonymity. When recruited, members were asked to log
into the online community roughly two to three times per week, for an estimated total time of one hour
per week. The community was active from October 2013 to April 2014.
2
Online Community Login Page
Recruitment
An extensive recruitment campaign was undertaken to ensure a broad mix of stakeholders was invited to
participate in the online community. The following recruitment steps were undertaken:
- mail drop to over 40,000 rural households
- print ads and online ads with farmer-related publications (Western Producer, Grainnews, etc.)
- promotion by WSA representatives and WSA Minister Ken Cheveldayoff at relevant events such as
SUMA and SARM meetings
- on-air promotion with radio interviewers/radio programs
- referrals from existing online community panel members
- telephone recruitment by Insightrix
The original goal for the online community size was 1,500 individuals. Despite the significant recruitment
efforts outlined above, there was less interest in joining the online community than anticipated. Feedback
from potential panel members during the telephone recruitment phase identified the following barriers to
participating in the community:
- lack of comfort with technology
- anticipated time commitment to be part of the panel
- Internet connectivity issues
- reluctance to join due to anonymity issues (despite being able to use a display name)
- lack of concern over agricultural drainage
3
In the end, 491 individuals joined the online community. The distribution of these individuals by type is
outlined below.* Note that no representatives from the provincial or federal government were part of this
panel, nor did members of the WSA participate in the online discussions. Local government
representatives include elected officials within municipal government bodies.
* Note that the list was a “select all that apply” and as such, several individuals stated they were a member of the general public in addition to being a
member of another group. Therefore, these proportions add up to more than 100%.
Despite a smaller panel size than initially anticipated, the community was lively and had a great deal of
discussion on most topics. Overall, more than 2,000 posts were logged in the online community over the
seven months that it was active.
Process of Joining the Community
The process for joining the online community consisted of two steps. First, potential panel members were
directed to visit the website agdrainage.insightrix.com. This home page included both a log in section as
well as a “join’’ button. New users would click on the join button and be directed to enter their name and
email address. Once complete, an automated email message was sent to them from the online
community software. Potential members were required to open this email and click on an activation link
to confirm their membership in the community. Following this, new members were prompted to
complete a short profile survey prior to being able to view and participate in discussion forms.
Discussions
Insightrix worked closely with the WSA to develop a number of discussion topics to collect feedback from
panel members. Topics ranged from requesting broad-level input on agricultural drainage to specific
68%
13%
5%
7%
41%
Farmer / primary producer
Local government representative
Community organization or NGO
Conservation and Development Area Authority orWatershed Association
Member of the public
4
feedback on potential policy items. A complete list of the discussion topics asked of members can be
found in Appendix I.
Example Discussion
The specific functionality available to members within the discussions included
- replying to others’ posts
- liking or disliking someone’s post
- sending a private message to the moderator or to another panel member
- reporting a comment as abusive
Further, panel members would receive an email message if
- a new discussion topic was posted to the online community
- someone replied to one of their posts
- someone sent them a private message
Interpretation of Findings
Findings from the online community should be considered qualitative in nature. Similar to reporting of
other qualitative research such as focus groups, common themes brought forward are highlighted
throughout this report. In addition any ideas or suggestions brought forward by members that were
openly embraced or discussed at length by other members is also included in the report. This means that
the findings from this phase of research may not be representative of opinions among all stakeholders.
5
However, cases where sentiments identified within the online community align with the quantitative
research findings suggest that such beliefs are commonplace among stakeholders in general.
IN-PERSON MEETING
Given the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues surrounding agricultural drainage, the discussion
topics within the online community became broad and wide-ranging. While valuable information was still
being collected through the online community, the value of having an in-person meeting with a handful
of individuals was quickly identified, as it would enable more focused and detailed discussion of specific
issues and aspects of agricultural drainage.
To meet this need, Insightrix selected a mix of online community members who were most active in the
online discussions yet also represented differing viewpoints. Further, efforts were taken to ensure a mix of
individuals was recruited based on geographic regions and regional drainage-related challenges.
The in-person session was held in Saskatoon on February 6, 2014. There were eight participants from the
online community in attendance at the day-long session, as well as two representatives from the WSA.
The session was moderated by an Insightrix researcher. Several additional WSA, other government
officials and Insightrix staff members attended but did not participate in the discussion.
Topics covered in the session were based on the draft policy that the WSA had developed and included
- proposed policy principles
- proposed policy approaches
- proposed policy outcomes
- additional considerations from the panel
A copy of the materials that was distributed to in-person session participants in advance of the meeting is
included in Appendix II.
ONLINE AND TELEPHONE SURVEY
While the online community provided valuable qualitative feedback regarding agricultural drainage issues
and policy components, a quantitative assessment of support and opposition for proposed policy
elements was necessary. As such, the final step in the stakeholder engagement involved the
administration of a questionnaire. Originally, the plan was to conduct this survey with online panel
members. However, because fewer stakeholders joined the online community than planned, most
commonly due to a lack of comfort with technology, it was important to ensure feedback was collected
from the broader community through a traditional method. Therefore, a multimode approach was utilized
6
where the online community received an online version of the questionnaire and at the same time, a
random selection of stakeholders was contacted by telephone to participate in the same survey.
The questionnaire was designed in partnership with the WSA and the content was based largely on the
discussions and findings from the online panel, the in-person meeting, and draft policy content that had
been prepared by the WSA. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix III.
Quotas were set to ensure a desired mix of stakeholders participated in the study (quotas are listed in the
questionnaire in Appendix III). In the end, 480 respondents participated in the survey and the final
distribution of respondents very closely matched the quotas initially set:
Method Sample Distribution
Telephone interviews 302
Online community 178
TOTAL 480
Respondent type Sample Distribution*
Farmer 337
Local government representative 142
NGO, CAA, WS Association 83
TOTAL 480
* Note that the list was a “select all that apply” and as such, several respondents stated that more than one category applies to them.
Data were collected from April 7th
to April 21st, 2014. The response rate from the online community was
36%. For the telephone interviews, the response rate was 28%. Because a portion of this research was
conducted online, the study is considered a non-probability proportional sampling study and therefore a
margin of error cannot be reported. However, this does not negatively reflect on the quality of the data
collected. Further, the results from this study can still be applied to the broader population of targeted
stakeholders, knowing that standard non-response research biases exist.
REPORTING NOTES
Unless otherwise specified, any data presented in this report using percentages originates from the
quantitative research study. Throughout the report, references are made with respect to feedback
collected from all research activities. For clarity, when speaking to results from each group, the findings
are identified as follows:
Online community: Members of the online community or online community members
In-person session: In-person session participants
7
Telephone / online survey: Quantitative survey respondents.
The word ‘stakeholders’ refers to the broader audience of individuals who participated in any research
activity. Any quotes included in this report originate from the online community and/or the in person
session.
8
STUDY FINDINGS
CURRENT LANDSCAPE
SHOULD DRAINAGE BE ALLOWED?
To begin, members of the online community were asked the broad
philosophical question about whether or not agricultural drainage should
be allowed. While differing opinions exist regarding the amount of
drainage that should be allowed and the specific criteria and rules that
should be put in place, most acknowledge that drainage is a necessary
fact in agricultural activity. Having said this, there are some who strongly
oppose all forms of agricultural drainage, commonly those who have
incurred damaged from others conducting such activities.
Despite wide-ranging opinions on the specifics of drainage, the
quantitative survey results illustrate that a large majority of respondents (70%) agree that drainage is
essential to agriculture but must be carefully designed and implemented to minimize downstream impact.
3. Broadly speaking which of the following three statements best reflects your opinion as it relates to drainage of water on agricultural
lands? Base: All respondents, n=480
12 % 17 %
70 %
1 %
Agricultural drainage poses a
serious risk to downstream
residents and landowners and
to water quality and should
not be allowed
Agricultural drainage is
essential to allow farmers to
manage their land and
maintain and improve the
viability of their operations
and should be allowed to
proceed with minimal
restrictions
Agricultural drainage is
essential to agriculture, but
must be carefully designed
and implemented to minimize
downstream impact
None of the above
“Upstream drainage, whether
controlled or not, will cause
damage to downstream
landowners by way of erosion,
siltation, ponding of
additional water, prolonged
wet areas, salinity, transfer of
weeds and diseases, etc., not
to mention negative
environmental impact.“
9
CURRENT DRAINAGE ACTIVITIES
Claimed drainage of water on agricultural lands is commonplace but may still be understated given the
sensitivity of acknowledging such behaviour. Among farmers in the online community, 68% report that
they have conducted some form of drainage activity, most commonly the construction of permanent
channels and ditches, landscaping or leveling, and temporary v-ditching or scraping. This claimed
behaviour also lines up with comments made within the online community regarding drainage activities
that are undertaken.
Have you drained any of your farm land by means of the following? (select all that apply) n=334, farmers (Screener question)
Within the quantitative research study, generally consistent findings are noted (59% report they have
drained land).
6. Within the past 5 years, have you drained any of your farm land by means such as construction of permanent channels or ditches, landscaping, v-
ditches, scraping, tile drainage, etc.? Base: All respondents who are farmers, n=337
43%
42%
38%
18%
11%
6%
3%
32%
Construction of permanent channels / ditches
Landscaping / land levelling
Temporary v-ditches / scraping
Wetland consolidation
Wetland drainage
Tile drainage
Another means
Do not drain land
Have drained
farmland, 40 %
Have not drained
farmland, 59 %
68% at
least one
behaviour
10
Several stakeholders are already involved in organized drainage activities through CAA’s or Watershed
Associations or have pursued various best practices methods of controlling drainage.
KNOWLEDGE OF DRAINING RULES
Presently in Saskatchewan, most drainage activities require approval with the exception of slough
consolidations in certain situations. These special circumstances notwithstanding, lack of knowledge that
all drainage activities currently require provincial government approval is common. Although this question
was not directly asked in online community discussions or in the in-person session, the quantitative survey
results reveal that less than one half of respondents are aware of such a requirement (45%). In fact, 44%
believe the opposite: that at least some drainage activities do not require government approval.
Addressing this perception will be essential to ensuring that a new policy is successfully implemented.
11. To the best of your knowledge, do all drainage activities currently require provincial government approval, regardless of how big or small they are?
Base: All respondents, n=480
All drainage activities currently require
provincial government
approval, 45%
All drainage activities
currently do not require
provincial government
approval, 44%
Not sure, 11%
“In my area GPS autograde has
made believers out of pretty much
everyone. Now it takes a week in
spring for the water to run off
when it used to go in 2 days,
erosion is very minimal, and natural
environments are left because the
base of peoples land can produce
year after year.”
The extreme opposite is a person
draining every drop of water they
can. No drainage will cause
flooding. Extreme drainage will
eliminate ground water recharge.
.“
“In our area it is kind of an unwritten
rule that we never will or should
never make a grade steeper than
0.04 degrees.”
11
CURRENT IMPACTS
Within the panel, comments about being negatively impacted by the
drainage activities of others are widespread. However, several on the panel
also note that they are benefiting from drainage activities.
The quantitative survey substantiates that most farmers (78%) are impacted
by repercussions of upstream drainage or insufficient drainage on their
land. This high level of impact likely explains the broad-level support for
drainage activities, as reported earlier.
4. Are any parts of your farm land… Base: Those respondents who are farmers, n=337
When specifically asked whether agricultural drainage positively or negatively impacts farmer’s operations,
the quantitative survey illustrates that there are those who benefit from such activities and those who do
not. This likely speaks to the divisive nature of agricultural drainage in general.
5. How much does agricultural drainage impact your farming operation in a positive/negative way? Base: All respondents who are farmers, n=337
23% 20%
35%
23%
Suffering frominsufficient
drainage only
Affected byupstream drainage
only
Suffering frominsufficient
drainage andaffected by
upstream drainage
Neither
22 %
28 %
29 %
28 %
51 %
56 %
Negatively
Positvely
A great deal Somewhat
78% impacted
“Drainage not allowed is
the extreme just like saying
everything should be
drained. Managed
drainage is common
practice. People normally
ensure that water does not
run into their home or
basement.”
The extreme opposite is a
person draining every drop
of water they can. No
drainage will cause
flooding. Extreme drainage
will eliminate ground water
recharge.
.“
12
“Drainage must be carefully considered when livestock
producers’ drainage could provide contamination
issues for downstream landowners. These projects
require very close scrutiny before being allowed.”
“Farmers with very flat land will
require some form of drainage to
be able to use their land.”
COMPLAINTS
A little over one quarter of respondents claim they have been involved in a drainage dispute.
23. Have you ever been involved in a drainage complaint? Base: Those respondents who are farmers, n=337
TYPES OF DRAINAGE THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED
Within the online community, members discussed the types of drainage that they believe should be
allowed to take place. Opinions among panel members are divided. While some believe that drainage
should not be allowed without a permit, others mention that if moving water into a ditch does not cause
any damage, it should be allowed without a permit. However, several also state that landowners should be
penalized for the downstream effects of their draining activities.
Situations where panel members suggest that drainage should be allowed include
- farmers with flat land
- drainage of small potholes and sloughs
- drainage that moves water from one piece of land to another piece
of land within the same farm
Broadly speaking, most panel members believe that drainage should be allowed in a controlled form.
They believe that the system should include gates which can control the flow of the water and stop
drainage if required. However, some concerns were raised with regards to drainage:
- Drainage from lands of livestock producers may cause contamination issues for downstream
landowners.
- Drainage should not be allowed if there is no means to slow water or if it floods downstream
land.
- Fertilizers and sprays may make their way into the water system which can contaminate the water.
Those who are against drainage in principle claim that all kinds of drainage have consequences. However,
many of them acknowledge that controlled and regulated drainage activity can lower the impact drainage
has on people downstream.
Have been involved in drainage
complaint, 28 %
Have not been involved in drainage
complaint, 73 %
13
“With the hundreds of landowners that I have been involved with, 99% of them move their
water from one higher slough to a lower one to cut down on the inconvenience of not
getting into that area of the quarter of land until later in the spring (eliminating seeding
potholes). Some move their water into ditches and most cases the water just sits in the
ditch for a couple of weeks and is taken by nature. I believe they should have their right to
do what they feel is best for them but if there is a complaint or questions on the
consequences of that water, there should be an advisor or expert that will not only answer
their problem, but will come out and inspect the situation and advise the landowner.”
“We are told that ditching can be done with minimum downstream effect. We are told that
gates can be used to control water flow to prevent downstream flooding. So what we are to
believe is that during the springtime rush to get the crop in, farmers are going to keep the gates
closed because this is the also the peak time of downstream flooding? Does anybody think for a
moment that the individuals who currently are involved in unregulated ditching are going to
now install gates and manage them to prevent the flooding of their neighbour's land?”
“There is NO enforcement of
the rules. The WSA gives a few
recommendations and it
doesn't matter if there was
permission or not.”
PERCEIVED NEED FOR A NEW AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE POLICY
Stakeholders were asked to discuss the need for a new agricultural drainage policy, including perceptions
of how effective the current policy is and important elements to include in a new policy.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE POLICY
More than one half of survey respondents (55%) believe the current policy is not effective at addressing
risks and impacts of drainage. This sentiment was also noted among the online community where several
members feel there is need for more compliance, management, and best practices with drainage.
7. In your opinion, how effective are current agricultural drainage policies at addressing risks and impacts of drainage? This includes prevention, education,
remediation and enforcement of compliance. Base: All respondents, n=480
7 %
31 %
28 %
27 %
7 %
Very effective
Somewhat effective
Not very effective
Not effective at all
Not sure
55% not
effective
38%
effective
14
“Too many people are draining their land in total disregard
of any rules and recent provincial governments have not
done or wished to do anything about it.”
“Minister Cheveldayoff: We would like to see that you create a
pamphlet that states the rights of landowners, the obligations of
WSA, and the obligations of the person or group that want to drain.”
IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING A NEW POLICY
Discussions in the online community overwhelmingly point to the desire for a new policy to be developed.
The quantitative survey aligns with this, where nearly six in ten respondents (58%) feel it is very important
for a new policy to be developed and another 29% feeling that it is somewhat important.
8. In your opinion, how important is it for Saskatchewan to develop a new agricultural drainage policy? Base: All respondents, n=480
58 %
29 %
8 %
3 %
2 %
Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not important at all
Not sure
87%
important
15
At the philosophical level, respondents are highly supportive of overarching outcomes of a new policy
that makes efforts to prevent damage to downstream landowners and residents, downstream flooding,
and negative impacts on receiving water bodies.
% who say it is important to prevent…
9. How important is it that a new agricultural drainage policy address each of the following? Base: All respondents. n=480
The areas of prevention noted above were also frequently mentioned by members of the online drainage
panel and those who attended the in-person session.
60 %
65 %
73 %
76 %
30 %
28 %
22 %
20 %
90 %
93 %
95 %
96 %
Erosion that would impactreceiving lakes
Negative impacts on waterquality in receiving water
bodies
Downstream flooding
Damage to downstreamlandowners and residents
Very important Somewhat important
16
“Once you have that and some kind of policy written up that will
include all of Saskatchewan, then you can add to it for your own area.
And that policy has to have people with open minds working on it.”
“A water security agency pops up and the
very real threat of yet another government
agency that is empowered to tell me what
I can and cannot do on my own land
appears to be coming into being….We
primary producers are getting very, very
nervous as to how things are going to
conclude.”
IMPORTANCE OF FORMAL & ORGANIZED DRAINAGE
Through the online community and the in-person session, a majority of stakeholders state that formal and
organized drainage is important and essential to prevent negative downstream impacts. While most are
supportive of formal organized drainage, there are some who are apprehensive about new rules that may
impose restrictions as to what they as landowners can do on or with their land.
“The idea of organized drainage is
a must in this province. Water is a
wasted resource; people have been
controlling water for centuries, for
use of the land for agriculture.”
“Drainage needs to be formal and organized to protect all those who are
affected by it. Those who only know their immediate area and imminent
‘needs’ will unintentionally harm the ecosystem and thereby themselves along
with others. Without someone looking out for the ecosystem it will be
damaged unintentionally by those who also need it because they do not
realize the far reaching effects of drainage.”
“The current system lacks a stable local
oversight capacity. Too often a problem is
solved upstream while even greater
problems are created downstream.”
“If there are emergencies, allow for quick
decisions but long term planning is
needed to address drainage going
forward.”
17
LEARNINGS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
During the in-person session, participants referenced drainage systems developed in Manitoba (super
highways) and Netherlands (meandering ditches). They also brought up the example of Alberta using
radar mapping to understand the topography. They suggest Saskatchewan do the same and let
municipalities use the information to build drainage systems. They suggest that the WSA consider
successful drainage system adopted elsewhere and adopt similar techniques to create regulations and
system in Saskatchewan.
“Saskatchewan has the
advantage of looking at other
jurisdictions neighbouring us
who have all tackled this.
Learning from other mistakes
we can learn something. “
“If you look at Manitoba look
at their structure – dams,
superhighways, it saved
Winnipeg, Brandon. “
18
NEW POLICY PRINCIPLES
Throughout the online discussions, in-person session, and the quantitative survey, each of the policy
principles developed by the WSA was presented and discussed. This section summarizes the feedback on
each principle. Note that this section predominately deals with support for the principles. Refer to the
Policy Approaches section for details on how stakeholders feel such principles should be put into action.
PRINCIPLE 1: DRAINAGE RIGHTS, MITIGATION, AND EDUCATION
Principle 1: Drainage is not a right; if potential or existing hydrological or environmental impacts cannot be
adequately mitigated, the drainage should not be allowed. Proponents must be educated to best
management practices around drainage.
Drainage is not a Right
Among the online panel, there is clear support for the belief that drainage is not a right of landowners or
other entities. Rather, members see drainage as a privilege that should only be afforded when certain
criteria are met. Opinions on the specific criteria vary but at the philosophical level, people are unified that
drainage is not a right. Commonly, in-person session participants drew on the analogy of driving: citizens
do not have a right to drive but rather a licence to do so.
“Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. All drainage does not create a
problem. Some go into the creek, if the creek systems are
maintained properly, then it won’t be a problem. But I think we
should have licensed draining because illegal drainage pops up
regularly.”
19
If Impacts Can’t Be Mitigated, Drainage Should Not Be Allowed
There is broad support for this component of Principle 1, both among
the panel and among those who completed the questionnaire (87%).
This aspect of the principle triggered a great deal of discussion regarding
what qualifies as an impact and what entails mitigation, but at the overall
level, respondents agree that if impacts cannot be controlled, then
drainage should be disallowed.
Proponents Must be Educated on Best Management Practices around Drainage
During the in-person sessions, a great deal of discussion took place
regarding educating landowners on the best practices of water
management. It was suggested that many “drainers” are simply
unaware of the impact their draining activities can have and through
some simple and straightforward education, the frequency of negative
activities could be reduced. The quantitative survey confirms support
for educating those who intend to drain water from their land. The
concept of certification as a requirement for draining was also brought
up at this point in the discussions. More on this subject is detailed in
the Policy Approaches section on page 32.
44 % 43 % 87 %
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Drainage should only be allowed if the negative
impacts of such drainage can be minimized
69 % 26 % 95 %
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Those who drain should be educated as to the best
management practices around drainage
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that could be considered part of a new
agricultural drainage policy and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or oppose
each of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that
could be considered part of a new agricultural drainage policy
and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or
oppose each of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480 “That’s why education is important. It should be a privilege and not a
right until you are educated. With drainage it is difficult to keep
track of. Education is going to be quick.”
20
PRINCIPLE 2: REGULATION TIED TO RISKS
Principle 2: The degree of regulation over the construction or operations
of drainage works should reflect hydrological or environmental risks.
Stakeholders are highly supportive of matching regulations for the
construction of works with the amount of risk involved. The key
challenge identified by panel members, however, will be objectively
defining risk levels. Further details on defining risk can be found on
page 24.
PRINCIPLE 3: THOSE WHO BENEFIT BEAR COSTS
Principle 3: Those who benefit from drainage should bear the costs of
appropriate drainage design and management, including damage
prevention and mitigation
Stakeholders largely support the WSA’s suggested approach of cost
responsibility for drainage works. This is confirmed through the
quantitative survey (84% support), the online community and the in-
person meeting that was held in February. However, it was noted that
there could be exceptions to liability such as in cases of extreme rainfall.
However, at the in-person session there were discussions about whether
costs should align with benefit received. Although these individuals
acknowledge that each landowner benefit varies, there can be
difficulty in quantifying this benefit. As such, it is felt that in cases of
organized drainage, all parties should share in the cost equally
(capital and operating).
52% 31% 84%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
44 % 43 % 87 %
Strongly support
Somewhat support
The degree of regulation of drainage works should be
based on the amount of risk involved
All parties who benefit from drainage should bear the
costs to design and manage such drainage activities,
including damage prevention
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that
could be considered part of a new agricultural drainage policy
and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or
oppose each of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that
could be considered part of a new agricultural drainage policy
and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or
oppose each of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480
“We would like to see the risks in a tier
structure, where different risk levels are
categorized.”
“Most drainage is designed to protect private property,
to increase capital resale value, or to make the farming
operation easier. This becomes essentially a private
benefit and should not be a public cost.”
21
.
PRINCIPLE 4: DRAINAGE ALIGNS WITH OBJECTIVES
Principle 4: Where drainage is allowed, drainage projects should align with hydrological and environmental
targets that reflect both local circumstances and provincial objectives.
Broadly speaking, members of the online community support the WSA’s suggestion of aligning projects
with hydrological and environmental targets. However, several note that it may be challenging to develop
targets that apply to all areas of the province given that each area of the province may be facing different
challenges. Others state that their support of such targets will depend on what specific targets are in fact
set. Further, some online community members express
concern over a loss of property rights based on the
WSA imposing hydrological and environmental targets.
This specific topic was not addressed in the
quantitative survey.
“Yes they should align with the hydrological and environmental targets. But, what are these
targets? There are very few standards actually available (as far as I can see) that I should target. There
are permitting requirements (usually looking to address a short term issue) but very few long-term
objectives.”
“The problem is the objectives are not the same
for the complete province. Different targets are
needed for different areas. In our area we need
controlled drainage. In other areas they may
need water storage and irrigation.”
“These projects need to be self-supporting. The
construction and maintenance should be
financed by the area it benefits. The complete
area benefits therefore the complete area
should share in the cost equally.”
“Everyone [impacted by the project] should pay
a buck an acre. Everybody has water and
everybody is involved in drainage.”
“You shouldn’t be 100% liable because you may
not be able to control for certain factors like
rain fall.”
“The drainage structure should belong to the
public following similar principles to roads and
bridges.”
22
PRINCIPLE 5: LAND CONTROL RESPONSIBILITY
Principle 5: The responsibility for land control and civil liability for impacts rests solely with project owners.
Broadly speaking, stakeholders agree with this principle. However, at the in-person session, participants
suggested that all parties involved in a drainage activity should be deemed liable for project impacts
rather than solely the project owner. Further, the current approach of strict land control in the form of an
easement registered on title is met with opposition. However, they do agree that an agreement or
permission among the participating parties should be struck. At the same time, in-person session
participants believe that in cases where unregistered drainage activities take place, the owner should be
held liable for any negative impact his or her activities may cause.
PRINCIPLE 6: REGULATORY PROCESS SEPARATE FROM ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
Principle 6: The regulatory process should remain distinct from any process related to assessment of
damages.
During the in-person session, participants agreed that it is beneficial for regulatory process be separated
from assessments of damages. Specifically, they believe it is best for the WSA to not be responsible for
assessing damages but rather to allow parties who would like to claim damages to do so through an
established process to enable landowners to pursue others for such damages.
“What would happen if we looked at two separate parts of the WSA? A BUSINESS model to function as
an overseer, with the expertise and knowledge to assist landowners (all) with developing and problem-
solving drainage issues; I would suggest almost a consultant function? Provide the support to the
landowner, investigate damage claims from an expert (civil engineer, topographer, whom ever is
required) point of view; and then provide this information to the landowners who have a vested interest
in results, and to the adjudicator that would handle any claims following the implementation /
completion of the project. And allow a GOVERNMENT function of WSA to operate as the... not
'enforcer' so to speak but the Judge, Jury and Executioner.”
“Very plain and simple if you wish to drain YOU should find out exactly where your drained
water will go, who it will impact (rural or urban) and after they ALL are aware of your intentions
and give a SIGNED go ahead agreement should you then be allowed to proceed. If you
proceed before agreements then your drainage is closed and you are fined.”
23
Processes should be put in place to ensure fair
resolution of individual drainage disputes
PRINCIPLE 7: ACCESS TO RESOLUTION & COMPENSATION
Principle 7: Parties claiming damages as a result of drainage should have adequate access to resolution and
compensation. Direct costs of the process should be reasonably assessed to the party causing the impact.
There is large-scale support for ensuring processes are put in place to ensure fair resolution of individual
drainage disputes. Further, there is also strong support for ensuring there is adequate access to
compensation and resolution for being negatively impacted by drainage activities.
50 % 35 % 86 %
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Those who feel they are being negatively impacted by
drainage should have adequate access to
compensation and resolution
69 % 26 % 95 %
Strongly support Somewhat support
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that could be considered part of a new
agricultural drainage policy and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or oppose each
of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480
“The issue of compensation for downstream impact that is attributed to upstream water management
practices needs to be built in to the model. This needs to include a mechanism for oversight, for
complaints, for appeals, and also a mechanism for collection of penalties and distribution of
compensation.”
24
POLICY APPROACHES
The WSA proposed a number of approaches to meet the new policy principles. These approaches were
further discussed with members of the panel and during the in-person discussion. Specific questions were
included with regards to certain approaches in the quantitative study. The following section outlines
stakeholder discussion and suggestions regarding the implementation of policy components.
DEFINING RISK
Members of the online community note that it will be difficult to define risk, even into broad categories of
low and high risk. However, the following guidelines were suggested in order to determine risk level:
- the length of time water has been present in the location of interest
- the reason why the water is being held back
- the volume of water that will be drained
- percentage of water being drained in comparison to the
area of the land it covers
- whether the drainage is being controlled and how it is
being controlled
- the potential and/or anticipated negative impact of the
drainage activity (hydrological, environmental, economic)
- cumulative effects based on other drainage activities taking place in the region/watershed
- the potential effect on nearby landowners, highways, and the RM should be considered.
Online panel members also state that a definitive set of criteria may not be possible to identify risk levels
given unique issues facing different parts of the province.
“Saskatchewan is a very big place –
one size regulation does not fit all.
Something that might work in the
north might not work in the south. We
would want to have all the facts in
front of us to categorize risk.”
“The idea of considering risk in drainage activities is seems pretty reasonable. The challenge in
my opinion is that most drainage projects start pretty small, with operators logically saying ‘my
project is just small, and there are already 400 other similar drains in my RM or watershed’ so it
should be OK to proceed or follow a code/guideline/standard. Drainage is a classic ‘cumulative
effects’ issue - add up 400 low risk small drainage projects, each of them low risk on their own,
and then have a look downstream where the sum of these projects come together, and there are
consequences, either environmental, or civil due to downstream damages.”
“My first concern is setting the bar too low for drainage plans that may at the outset appear to
be low risk. The risks are not only focused on the original drainage project but also relate to
downstream impacts.”
25
During the in-person discussion, it was suggested that determining and managing risks should be
assigned to local boards or CAAs that are more familiar with the local terrain and conditions. They suggest
that the WSA should establish a code of conduct that local boards would follow when defining drainage
project risk, although there are mixed opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of such organizations. They
also suggest that landowners should be made aware of the various risk levels and code of conduct that
should be followed, as well as the repercussions of bad drainage.
Throughout the various discussions with stakeholders, the lack of availability of detailed information
related to watersheds was noted. Several stated that with this information, better decisions could be made
regarding the approval and denial of drainage activities and projects.
Finally, it was suggested that the WSA turn to other jurisdictions to see how water is managed and risk is
assessed. This included Alberta, Manitoba and Holland.
“I have studied most of the legislation from other provinces and this is the common approach.
Alberta's framework is very much along these lines and has very a reasonable, easy to understand
set of definitions to determine the risk level of any new works. All drainage works for any purpose
no matter how small require permitting under their system and it is the initial risk level
assessment which determines the conditions of approval, inspection if any and operating control
measures if any.”
“There needs to be a comprehensive survey of the watersheds in Saskatchewan. There is not a
reliable data base on which to make accurate plans.”
“Unfortunately no one has told me that the knowledge is out there in the form of geological /
drainage records.”
“The geological surveys were done a hundred plus years ago. I cannot help wondering if the fur
traders knew more about our water systems than we do today.”
26
APPROVALS & REGISTRATION
A majority of stakeholders agree that high-risk projects should require approval or licensing prior to
proceeding. This was noted through both the online panel as well as through the quantitative study.
12. Moving forward how do you think the WSA should proceed with respect to high risk projects? Base: All respondents, n=480
Opinions regarding low-risk projects however are divided. While some suggest that people will comply
when a licence is required (30%), others state that requiring licensing on all projects will slow down the
system and simply registering a project with the WSA or another agency such as a CAA should suffice for
low-risk projects (36%). Further still, some believe low-risk projects should be allowed to proceed without
notifying the government at all (26%). Suggested examples of this latter approach would be in situations
where a landowner drains water from one part of their land to another (i.e., water does not leave their
property).
74 %
17 %
1 % 6 %
ALL high risk activitiesrequire approval
Require high riskactivities to simply be
registered with thegovernment through an
online process
Allow high risk activitiesto proceed without
notifying thegovernment at all
Something else
“It is important that even [the] smallest
project needs licensing. It notifies your
neighbours that you are doing a project
and there is paper work.”
“There must be approval of all landowners that
will be affected whether it be downstream or
upstream. The approvals need to be in writing.
The WSA should be involved in this process also.”
27
13. And how do you think the WSA should proceed with respect to lower risk projects? Base: All respondents, n=480
Regardless of whether a low- or high-risk project is licensed or simply registered
with the WSA, stakeholders strongly believe that monitoring and enforcement of
such projects is essential. Further, if a project is not granted permission, is altered
from the original criteria, or is considered illegal, stakeholders agree that the
project holder should be subject to fines and project closures.
Farmers are more likely to support the ideal of
allowing low risk projects to proceed without
notifying the government at all while non-farmers are
more likely to support either of the alternative
approaches.
30 %
36 %
26 %
6 %
All low risk activitiesrequire approval
Require low riskactivities to simplybe registered withthe government
through an onlineprocess
Allow low riskactivities to proceed
without notifyingthe government at
all
Something else
“If any drainage is allowed, it should be completely
monitored, and only be done within set limits. People
should not be allowed to drain into creeks or water
ways as it always affects someone else downstream,
and that is unfair to them.”
“When a drainage permit is granted, the WSA need to be on
top of the situation at all times, before, during and after the
project is approved up to one year after the completion of
the project. If the project has been altered from the original
criteria the said project holder should be fined a hefty sum.”
“I don’t need police at every
point, I have speed limits
posted and I’m a trained driver.
So, I don’t think everything
should be licensed. It will slow
down the process.”
“If the slough is under a certain
size (ex: 2 ac) then it would be
exempt from the process as
long as the water doesn't pass
on to another farmer’s land. If it
does then it should have to
have a permit, and to qualify,
the draining has to be done in
a responsible way(ex: tile)..”
28%
34%
33%
35%
43%
13%
ALL low risk activities requireapproval
Require low risk activities to simplybe registered with the government
through an online process
Allow low risk activities to proceedwithout notifying the government
at all
How do you think the WSA should proceed with respect to lower risk projects?
Farmer / primary producer Non-farmer
28
EXISTING DRAINAGE WORKS
It was widely acknowledged among stakeholders that most existing drainage activities do not have
government approval. Stakeholders were asked their opinions on how these projects should be handled
in the context of adopting a new policy.
A wide range of opinions exist including recommending immediate closure of such works, requiring
approval of such works according to the new policy, continued operation of such works without any
review, or registration with the WSA through a grandfather clause. These opinions on how existing
drainage activities are handled tend to be impacted by the perceived risk and/or potential or actual
damage that existing activities have caused.
While opinions vary greatly when discussed in the online panel and at the in-person session, results from
the quantitative research illustrate that a majority of respondents (69%) feel some form of approval or
registration of existing works should take place. Specifically, nearly one half (46%) believe existing works
should require approval or registration consistent with the new policy within a reasonable time frame and
nearly one quarter (23%) suggest that all existing projects be simply registered through an online process,
presumably one that is more simplistic than a formal registration/approval process. Only 12% believe
existing works should remain unchecked.
46 %
23 %
14 %
12 %
1 %
4 %
Should require approval or registration consistent withthe new policy within a reasonable time frame such as
5 or 10 years
Should be simply registered with the provincialgovernment through an online process
Something else
Should be allowed to continue without any approvalor registration
No opinion on the matter
Not sure
14. Thinking about existing drainage works that have not received provincial government approval, do you feel that such works.
Base: All respondents, n=480.
29
During the online and in-person sessions, stakeholders discussed the willingness and incentives for
landowners to register their existing works that are currently not approved by the WSA. Specifically, it is
believed that landowners will be reluctant to register or seek approval for existing works in cases where
there have been no complaints or damages from their project because the project may be denied by the
WSA once an application is made. To address this, stakeholders suggest that the WSA
- ensure farmers are not penalized for past drainage activities related to their project provided
there are no outstanding damages or grievances
- ensure that existing projects that have not caused damages or grievances be allowed to
operate until the WSA has issued an approval or denial decision for the project
- allow farmers a reasonable amount of time to comply with any change order requirements
set upon them based on the registration/approval of existing works
- make resources available, such as project managers, who can help landowners meet the
guidelines and regulations set by WSA for drainage activities
However, members state that current illegal draining which negatively impacts others should not be
allowed to continue.
“If the drainage activity has not been
approved, ditches should be filled in
immediately and the party or parties
(including R.M.'s) responsible for the
unapproved draining should be
financially responsible for both the cost
of filling in the ditches and for any
damage the drainage may have caused
downstream.”
“The priority has to be to protect the people downstream, not
protecting the people that are gaining by draining their land. These
control gates have to be monitored by an independent body. (NOT
THE WATER SECURITY AGENCY). The way the system is now, it is
always in favor of the people that are draining their land. This has to
stop. The mindset of the old Saskatchewan Watershed Authority and
the new WSA has to change.”
“If the activity is deemed to have too many negative effects vs.
the positive benefits the drainage activity should be immediately
reversed at the cost of those who initiated it. The reversal
process should happen by a third party though.”
30
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Stakeholders were asked to comment on the
approval criteria for drainage works. A majority of
survey respondents agree that applicants should
follow specific design and operation standards and
a similar proportion agree that project organizers
should be required to repair any damages they may
cause. Agreement with having private, qualified
professionals approve drainage work is mixed.
During the in-person session, it was mentioned that
hiring a private, qualified professional to approve
drainage can become expensive for landowners.
However, others note that there is value in having
an expert fully assess the risks and potential
damages of a drainage project.
Specific criteria deemed important to allow drainage to proceed according to online panel members and
in-person participants include
- consideration of upstream and downstream impacts for farm land, streams, ditches,
roadways, towns, and other infrastructure
- watershed contamination including wetlands
- impact on flow rates and the ability for the system to handle additional potential water flows
- erosion potential
- short-term and long-term impacts
- evidence of affected parties working together on the project
- ease and ability for the project to be monitored by an independent body (the WSA, CAA, etc.)
after the works have been approved (i.e. staff nearby or regularly visit the area to monitor the
project)
15. For new and or existing projects that will require an approval, do you
agree or disagree with each of the following? Base: All respondents, n=480
“If you start with where the water ends up and work your way
back to the end of the catch basin and have a plan that will
allow everyone in the catch basin to drain into the ditch then
and only then will we have a controlled drainage system and
protect downstream farmers.”
30 %
49 %
50 %
24 %
25 %
28 %
55 %
74 %
77 %
Private, qualifiedprofessionals will berequired to approve
drainage work
Project organizers willbe required to repairany damages caused
The applicants willneed to follow specificdesign and operationstandards and rules
Strongly Agree
Somewhat agree
31
16. Thinking about wetlands, please rate your agreement with each of the
following statements. Base: All respondents. n=480
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
Stakeholder feedback illustrates that there are divided opinions regarding wetlands management as it
relates to agricultural drainage. The first debate is with respect to the definition of
wetlands. Members of the online community and participants at the in-person
session commonly believe the definition of a wetland can be based on size of the
water body and/or the length of time the water has been present. Specifically, some
believe that if water persists in a location throughout the entire year, it should be
considered a wetland. Others believe that water being present for two to three years
would classify the body as a wetland. Further, some believe that “potholes” should
not be classified as wetlands due to their small size. In the end, the definition of a
wetland was secondary to opinions on wetlands management from an agricultural perspective.
Within the quantitative study, more than three quarters (78%) of respondents agree that a new drainage
policy should ensure that some larger, more permanent wetlands be retained. However, equal
proportions agree that all wetlands should be retained (63%) and that drainage of small wetlands is
acceptable (62%). The apparent contradiction in support for these three opposing viewpoints confirms
that opinions vary among respondents and addressing the issue of wetland management may prove
challenging. This is further substantiated by the fact that the topic of wetlands resulted in more than 100
posts in the online community. This is more active than many of the other discussion topics with the
online panel.
Farmers are less likely to support the notion of retaining all
wetlands:
- Farmers: 57% agree
- Non-farmers: 73% agree
29%
24%
43%
33%
39%
36%
62%
63%
78%
Drainage of wetlands is an acceptablepart of agriculture because it is unrealisticto expect farmers to give up the potential
production or to drive large machineryaround many small wetlands
Wetlands are very important and whiledrainage activities that remove
floodwater from fields are fine, allWetlands should be retained
Drainage of wetlands is acceptable, butthe policy should ensure that some larger,
more permanent wetlands are retained
Strongly agree
Somewhat disagree
“We do need to define the
meaning of a wetland. In my
books a wetland never goes
dry in a normal year. A
slough that holds water for 3
to 8 weeks in the spring then
dries up is not a wetland.”
32
A common theme noted throughout the online discussion included the opportunity and real costs of
retaining wetlands and who bears this cost. Some farmers note that they make a personal decision to
retain some wetlands at their own opportunity cost while others feel that
incentives such as tax breaks or fees paid by interest groups would encourage
farmers to maintain wetlands. Others feel that a broader habitat plan needs to
be put in place with the purchase of wetlands and investment by other bodies
such as governments or interest groups to maintain such water bodies for
wildlife.
It was suggested that the WSA list its objectives as related to wetlands management as well as
communicate the importance of and benefits of retaining wetlands. Other factors suggested by
stakeholders that the WSA could consider include
- set a goal of the amount wetlands that should be retained as a measurement of success
- wetland location (wetlands in a corner of land is more desirable to maintain than in the
middle of a field)
- wildlife preservation benefits
- access to the wetlands during dry years/storage of water for dry years
- the necessity of wetlands to maintain proper filtering effects for
future years
- providing tax incentives or other tangible benefits for farmers to
retain wetlands or alternatively, tax penalties for draining such
wetlands
- require farmers to retain a certain amount of wetlands as a condition of drainage of water
from other parts of their farm land (divided support/opposition noted)
“As farmers we look at
wetland like nonproductive
area. But that’s not true.”
“Though I agree with the idea of more wetlands, I doubt many farmers would buy into this. If the
wetlands happen to occur on a corner of a parcel of land, then most owners wouldn't have a
problem leaving it as is. If the wetlands happen to be in the middle of the field, I believe owners
wouldn’t be so keen on keeping it around… I think making it mandatory to keep some wetlands
on farm land would cause a lot of headache because of those who would object it. The way I see
it right now, creating wetlands seems to be only achievable through incentives, not forcefulness.”
“I believe wetlands could be left, but show me the money!!!!!!!! The USA pays
there farmers set aside fees and so should we here. If Ducks Unlimited wants
wetlands, pay me the money otherwise I’ll produce grain in them.”
“Should we, the farmers retain wetlands as part of
the condition for drainage? My answer would be
yes, yet who would decide which wetland should be
left, the farmer or the one authorizing the permit.”
“If I could drain 150 acres
for crop production [and
be required to leave] 10
for retaining water [as a
condition of drainage],
my farm would be more
productive and add to
the wealth of
agriculture!!”
“Maybe it would be better if we
had a large purchased area in
the public trust that would hold
water instead of a lot of small,
unconnected potholes.”
“Lake Diefenbaker is on verge of becoming Lake Winnipeg due to
phosphate loading. If we are going to be responsible stewards of
this province, which is what the government is responsible for,
then we need to get in know of everyone issue's.”
33
CERTIFICATION, EDUCATION & INCENTIVES
Throughout the online discussion and the in-person session, educating stakeholders on the best
management practices related to drainage was repeatedly mentioned. Specifically, most believe that
education is the key to ensure that landowners understand the best practices for drainage, understand the
repercussion of poor drainage projects, and implement it in their projects. Suggestions included written
materials, workshops and seminars. The quantitative study verifies that there is interest in having the
government provide educational materials on best management practices on agricultural drainage (95%
agree).
Among in-person session participants, most state that they would be willing to pursue drainage education
if such courses were made available. It is noted though that actual participation in such courses may be
notably lower than stated, as in research studies respondents tend to overstate their future behaviours.
Interest in enrolling in an education course was not measured within the quantitative survey.
In the in-person session, it was suggested that incentives be provided to those who take a formal course
or obtain certification on drainage to encourage education among those involved in drainage. Such
incentives could include a faster approval process for future drainage works. The quantitative research
suggests there is moderate support for this notion (59% agree with the concept) and a similar proportion
(54%) agree that a licence be required as a condition of drainage. While many online panel members like
these concepts, many express concern that educating people or issuing licences may not alter behaviours.
Again, enforcement was brought up as essential ensure a licensing system is effective.
17. With respect to education, there are some options being considered. Do you agree or
disagree with each of the following? Base: All respondents. n=480
23 %
20 %
57 %
31 %
38 %
38 %
54 %
59 %
95 %
The government should require those who undertake drainage to acquire
certification before draining, similar to obtaining a Driver’s Licence before
being able to operate a vehicle
The government should provide anincentive to those who acquire
certification in the form of fast-trackedapproval
The government should provide accessto useful educational materials on
drainage best management practice
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
34
Additional considerations brought forward by stakeholders regarding education and licensing include
- a licence should not allow high risk projects to be fast tracked
- there could be significant costs and resource requirements to administer a licensing system
- provide incentives to obtain education rather than force it on people
- provide a reasonable timeframe for farmers to become educated
- forcing education on landowners can be seen as further government intervention
.
“I do feel that there should be a significant
time spent in the classroom to learn the
good, bad and ugly. Also, get information on
using technology, deeper vs. wider ditches.”
“I think people need to be educated on the
damage that draining water does, and how a
person can do it in a way that will not affect other
people.”
“Great idea [licensing drainers]. I would
suggest that there be a manual or book one
could use as reference when filling out an
application for drainage and between the
application and approval process problem
areas could be flagged and granting of license
would be conditional.”
“Education and good communication simply
cannot hurt. Hopefully this would be an
opportunity to inform participants about the
bigger picture and the downstream
implications of draining. Perhaps some
people would come up with alternatives and
in those cases there would be a bit less
draining.”
“I'm not particularly fond of this idea for the
reason being a simple license doesn't ensure
that "bad" drainage won't take place.”
“Licencing drainage reminds me of the long
gun registration fiasco. The idea of creating a
knowledge base with a licence based system
may have its merits.”
35
LOCAL WATER BOARDS
During the online and in-person discussions, it was suggested that
local bodies be created to deal with localized drainage issues.
Called “water boards” by online panel members and in-person
session participants, they state that through a board of this kind,
farmers can communicate their drainage problems and work
together to find solutions. A mix of benefits and drawbacks were
noted with this concept, as outlined below. Given the range of
opinions, it is anticipated that this would be a contentious topic if
pursued further by the WSA.
Key points brought forward by stakeholders include the following:
- Local organizations could work with the government to
administer the policies and guidelines because they will
have a better understanding of the local terrain.
- Local organizations could work with a water expert
where needed.
- Local water boards could include representation from
RMs and town councils involved as well as a diverse group of people to
bring in different interests (agriculture and environmental).
- Most believe that all officials for the water board should be elected, not
appointed.
- The water board could be the primary contact with the WSA, and
therefore, local problems would be handled locally.
- The water board could handle some of the responsibilities currently held
by the WSA such as mediating water complaints, managing control
gates, and assisting with technical knowledge of elevations and drainage
projects being proposed; however, there would be a close relationship
between the WSA and the local board.
- Local organizations could play a role in enforcement and compliance.
Identified perceived benefits of such boards could include
- greater knowledge of the local terrain
- better representation of local interest
- more responsive decision-making
- more effective enforcement of the policy
“We can’t have a regulation
for every water base. If we
had this managed through
more local boards, they
would be able to help better
and WSA can just leave a list
of do’s and don’ts and is left
up for negotiation with the
WSA.”
“They could handle
responsibilities currently
held by WSA as such as
mediating water complaints,
managing control gates &
assisting in technical
knowledge of elevations &
drainage projects being
proposed.”
“It would help correct problems created by
individuals and or municipalities in water
drainage by taking the local politics out of
it.”
“I propose a from the bottom up, local
organization - grassroots if you will - but
technically supported by the government and
with financial incentives. The government
should set up a legal framework in which
water boards would be created and operate.
If disputes within a basin arise, binding
mediation should be the norm. RM's with
their arbitrary, historical borders are, as a
rule, not equipped to deal with water issues.
These follow natural borders which normally
transcends RM borders. But RM's could
perhaps be called upon to assist in a practical
manner by providing heavy-duty equipment
in certain cases (like during the spring
runoff), something they do already. The key
is that the local people know the terrain and
have already an idea about possible
solutions.”
36
Despite a detailed discussion the concept of a local water board, some concern and opposition is noted.
Specific concerns noted include the following:
- lack of drainage knowledge among board members who are authorized to make decisions for
their region
- finding capable individuals willing to sit on the board given the contentious issues and
potential time commitments
- difficulty coordinating with neighbouring water boards/jurisdictions
- the potential for feuding among board members and/or RMs within the water board
- the potential for unfair treatment of landowners based on local
political dynamics
- potential duplication/overlap with existing CAAs, watershed
authorities, watershed stewardship groups and RMs in some
capacities
- lack of an independent body to make objective decisions for the
local area
“The problem comes with the
fact that you have people who
know nothing about natural
water flow, ground saturation,
ground make up [making
decisions].”
“This could become a very slippery slope in a
hurry. Say the governing body says 'Ok the
limit has been reached. No further drainage
allowed'. Now two neighboring farmers may
not have a level playing field. One has drained,
the other is not allowed to.”
“If we form boards it is people like this that will be
the first to sit on them so that they can continue
with their actions. It will pit farmer against farmer if
we have local boards. We have already seen the
RCMP called in where some of this draining has
brought neighbours to blows. It will take an
independent body to oversee and take action. They
must have set rules to work with and enforce and
penalties that will make people comply.”
“The province has already created Watershed
Stewardship Groups for most of the provinces
watersheds. They receive technical assistance /
support from WSA and other qualified agencies /
departments. Is there a need to add yet another
entity like a water board to the mix or should we
improve on what's already in place?”
“I sit on a local board SCRWA and a CND. I have
for 20 years we have mediated drainage
complaints and had very good success.”
“It is my experience that doing things in a group
is far better than a piece meal approach.”
37
MANAGEMENT OF AREAS WITH EXTENSIVE DRAINAGE
Next, stakeholders were asked about options the WSA could pursue in areas of the province where there
are extensive drainage issues. The quantitative study shows that there is agreement that landowners in
these areas should continue to be encouraged to come together voluntarily to form legal entities to
facilitate organized drainage (80%). However, the same proportion (79%) also believes that if landowners
in such areas are unable to form a drainage entity on their own, the province should be able to require
the formation of such organizations.
Interestingly, only 56% support the notion of preventing any new drainage in these areas until such an
organization is formed, regardless of whether it is formed voluntarily or through government intervention.
Farmers are less likely to support this idea (52%) than are non-farmers (64%).
Within the online community some note that with WSA involvement, decisions like expropriation would
be made by those without a personal profit interest, which would be an advantage in stalemate situations.
Despite strong positive support for provincial intervention if needed in these regions, there is strong
opposition noted among some online discussion members. Specifically, there are concerns over a
government agency having the power to force drainage works on a farmer’s land as well as the
anticipated effectiveness of such a government body given the existing dissatisfaction with the current
process of administering agricultural drainage. Again, these people believe that greater enforcement will
encourage increased compliance with drainage policies.
25 %
32 %
33 %
31 %
47 %
47 %
56 %
79 %
80 %
The provincial government should simplydisallow any new drainage in these areas
until the formation of an organized drainageauthority is created, regardless of whether
such organizations form on their own orthrough government intervention
The province should be able to require theformation of organized drainage authorities
in these areas
Landowners in these areas should continueto voluntarily come together to form legal
entities to facilitate organized drainage as iscurrently the case
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
18. In areas where there is extensive drainage activity, the provincial government is considering options related to
the formation of organized drainage authorities. Please rate your agreement with each of the following
statements. Base: All respondents. n=480
38
CONTROL GATES AS A REQUIREMENT OF DRAINAGE
Within the online community, members were asked if the installation of a control gate(s) should be
considered necessary for the approval of a drainage project. This topic was not discussed in the
quantitative survey or at length in the in-person session. While
there does not appear to be strong opposition to the use of
control gates, a variety of issues are noted that members believe
will make it complex for the WSA to implement a policy of
requiring the use of control gates as a condition of drainage, as
summarized below:
- There is a need to consider the broader watershed
rather than make this a condition at the individual
farm level.
- Depending on the unique nature of each region, control gates may or may not be the best
solution to effectively control water.
- For control gates to be effective, one needs to know the region well to in order to administer
the gates.
- Administering control gates needs to be done in a coordinated manner to ensure the system
can handle the flow.
- There is need for details on elevations within the region to make proper decisions on when
and how much water flow to allow.
- Given the size and geographic sparseness of some regions, it is suggested that water be
controlled by culverts rather than relying on humans to control several gates in the system.
“In the condition of gates controlling the
water flow, you will need someone that has
been involved since the beginning of this
project and knows the area very, very well.
That person will be responsible [to] all of the
landowners and the board with data of
timing, dates, and gates opened, and how
much water flow and controlled.”
“So now we're talking about changing the role of
the WSA from its current responsibility of
preventing illegal drainage (a role it is presently
failing miserably at) to one where it will be asked
to enforce organized drainage? Not a chance!”
“Water security agency should never hold the
right to force a landowner to participate in a c
and d project that they do not which to
participate in. Nor should they hold the right to
force any water works to be done on farmer
owned land ever!”
“Should WSA have the power to force
landowners to work together in areas with many
problems? I think yes. If I'm standing in water
and all around me is water for miles and I'm not
cooperating with anyone to fix this or try to
make it better then I should be forced.”
39
“Water control should be on a watershed basis
to be effective as well as the placement of
gates. Gates would be opened and closed by a
water management committee for the
watershed using the local landowners to
physically open or close the gates. This way
there would be immediate feedback on any
screw ups.”
“Control gates are a good idea but impossible to
manage on a watershed wide scale. Most watersheds
are too large with too few inhabitants with too little
knowledge of the bigger picture. In my area water
would quickly build up and spill over roads causing
damage. The best way to manage flow is to undertake a
comprehensive plan to limit flow by installing culverts
through roads of the proper size to limit peak flow out
of the watershed.”
“I don't think it should be a requirement across
the board because each watershed differs
immensely.”
40
COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT
Compliance and enforcement is an area that was commonly
referenced throughout the engagement process with stakeholders.
There is a strong belief that greater emphasis should be placed on
ensuring that those who drain water follow a policy that is set forth.
Among those surveyed, 86% support the government putting
regulatory requirements in place to minimize non-compliance with
drainage activities. This level of support is echoed in the online panel
and in-person discussions. Stakeholders suggest that the WSA establish
provincial objectives for drainage and communicate them with residents
so that all parties who are or may become involved in drainage
activities are aware of them and can keep them in perspective when
initiating a drainage project. Stakeholders also stated that the WSA
rules and regulations should be uniform and applicable throughout
the province. Through its compliance efforts, stakeholders recommend that the WSA should focus on
water management, including agricultural drainage activities, education regarding drainage, water
conservation, and other applicable elements.
The quantitative study also indicates that opinions are divided with respect to the compliance and
enforcement method that the WSA should undertake. Specifically, one half (51%) state that the
government should rely on a complaint-based enforcement system from landowners while nearly the
same proportion (45%) believes the government should proactively enforce compliance. Farmers are
more likely to prefer a complaint-based approach (57%) while non-farmers are more likely to prefer
proactive enforcement (56%).
The government proactively enforces
compliance with regulations such as
fines, penalties, stop work orders, etc., 45 %
The government relies on a complaint-based enforcement system from landowners and then investigates the
situation, 51 %
Don't know, 4 %
20. Turning to compliance and enforcement, which of the following two options would you prefer? Base: All respodents. n=480
57 % 29 % 86 %
Strongly support Somewhat support
Regulatory requirements should be put in place to
minimize non-compliance
Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that
could be considered part of a new agricultural drainage policy
and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or
oppose each of these ideas? Base: All respondents, n=480
“Let's use an analogy of a boxer…random drug
testing for athletes has been shown to be a
more effective means of discouraging PEDs
use than scheduled testing, so too could
random compliance checking be better at
discouraging bad drainage.”
41
Regardless of which method is used (complaint-based or
government enforcement), the quantitative study shows
that there is strong support (78%) for the WSA having
the power to enforce administrative penalties, voluntary
payments, notices of violation, stop work orders, orders
for closure of works, and orders for remedial action
related to agricultural drainage. While a majority of
farmers agree with this point, support is lower than that
among non-farmers (73% vs. 88%). However, strong
support for the concept is further substantiated through
the online discussions.
Commonly, increased fines are cited as an additional
deterrent to non-compliance, complemented with greater
enforcement (either proactive or via a complaint-based
system). However, stakeholders are quick to point out that
the WSA should have adequate resources to manage complaints to prevent false complaints from
delaying decisions on valid claims.
41 % 37 % 78 %
Strongly support
Somewhatsupport
Regardless of which method is used, do you support or oppose the
WSA having enforcement powers to impose things like
administrative penalties, voluntary payments, notices of violation,
stop work orders, orders for closure of works, and orders for
remedial action related to agricultural drainage? Base: All
respondents, n=480
“You need a fine of $10,000 and up, not $200. Put some
teeth into it or forget it you are just wasting everyone’s
time with these small fines and not doing it the way it is
supposed to be done.”
“The [current] drainage complaint system is a
complete failure because it pits neighbor
against neighbor, friend against friend, and in
most cases the government agency sits back
and does nothing.” “We know where the problem is, where it
starts, and also the solution, but to achieve the
solution will take years because of all the red
tape. We need an agency that will take
responsibility and do their job.”
42
RESOLVING DISPUTES
When asked about what an effective process to resolving drainage
disputes between neighbours might look, the following points were
noted:
- educate farmers about the policies surrounding agricultural
drainage (i.e., provide advice, not just penalties)
- encourage both parties to resolve the issue on their own first
- ensure there is no conflicts of interest among the disputing parties and the agency tasked
with resolving or laying judgment
- employ a process that enables an independent body to review disputes, force closure of
works, enforce penalties, etc.
- impose a nominal fee such as $100 for filing a complaint to minimize those filing false
complaints (fee would be refundable if the claim is valid)
Several suggest that the water boards previously
discussed could take on the role of mediator in these
types of disputes, conflicts of interest
notwithstanding. However, the need for quick
resolution of disputes is also frequently referenced.
“Teach, teach, teach, and a willingness to
learn what others have learned before
you. As farmers we are our own worst
enemy, sometimes getting angry before
we understand and know the facts.”
“Communication is the key. Many
arrogant R.M. councilors have to read
the rules and regulations and have to be
educated so as to not just stick up for
friends and for their own agendas”
“A government process that solves all
disputes with a mediator is essential” “Water security must act more quickly than it
does to resolve issues. They need to be able to
fine offenders with heavy penalties to deter
unauthorized drainage. Once they have photos
and proof, their own water board should have
authority to fine people and fix the problem areas
so that drainage is stopped. Any appeals from
the offender should be considered after the fines
because it just leaves the door open to prolonged
abuse as we currently see now.”
43
NON-COMPLIANT COMPLAINT PROCESS
Members of the online panel and in-person session participants were asked to comment on the following
possible non-compliant complaint process: (this topic was not discussed in the survey)
In cases of complaints, the WSA will immediately order closure of a non-compliant drain, and then
consider a licensing request. A licensed project will stay open, but WSA will review the claim of
damage to determine if the drainage approval needs to be altered if a report by a qualified person
supports the allegation of damage
The majority of stakeholders support the above policy suggestion. However, it is recommended that the
WSA provide sufficient time for landowners to register or seek approval of their existing projects before
implementing this policy. For licensed works that result in a complaint, stakeholders advise that a review
of the project be expedited to ensure that any ongoing damage is minimized.
As noted earlier, concerns with the WSA’s ability to manage the process are voiced with respect to this
policy suggestion, especially in regards to turnaround times.
LAND CONTROL
During the in-person session and in the quantitative study, stakeholders were asked to comment on
future land control requirements that they would be comfortable with when a new policy is adopted.
Presently, an easement registered on a land title is deemed required for a drainage project to proceed
where one farmer is draining land across another farmer’s land. Feedback from participants at the in-
person session illustrate that this requirement is undesirable for the following reasons:
“Yes I support this. The most important thing to accomplish in such a case of unlicensed drainage
having negative impacts downstream is to reduce or stop the cause of those impacts ASAP (i.e. close
the ditch), so as not to cause further hardship to those affected. Regarding the licensed work causing
negative downstream impacts, obviously if such a situation is occurring then there is clearly some sort
of non-compliance with the conditions of the approval (if deemed to cause impacts, it wouldn't have
been licensed in the first case), and there would need to be expedited mitigation measures
implemented in order to not prolong the negative impacts by dragging out the process for an
extended period of time.”
“The time to consider a licensing request,
process it, and perhaps then remove the
closure could take months or years.”
44
- an easement is permanent/extremely difficult to remove and if drainage conditions change,
the farmer who has water draining across his or her land cannot prevent the drainage from
continuing, especially if the upstream farmer begins to allow water onto his or her land from
someone else upstream
- an easement makes a parcel of land less attractive when being sold
Rather, stakeholders indicate that they historically have preferred more of a “hand-shake” approach where
there remains flexibility for both parties to reassess the agreement on an as needed basis. Various
alternatives were discussed at the in-person session and presented to respondents in the survey. Based on
these results, opinions are somewhat divided. The greatest proportion (44%) support a new approach
where a legal contract be signed between the two parties indicating that they are aware of and accept the
impacts of the drainage activity they are entering, as a means to avoid registration of an easement.
Three in ten (30%) suggest keeping things as they are now and 17% recommend simply advising
proponents of the legal risks of not choosing to proceed with registered land control.
5 %
17 %
30 %
44 %
Another option
Simply make proponents aware of the legal risks andthat they will bear liability if they choose to proceed
with drainage without registered land control
Keep things as they are now
Require an agreement or contract from the partiesinvolved indicating that they are aware of and accept
the impacts of the drainage activity
22. Presently, a licensed drainage project requires the registration of an easement
on land titles if water is crossing over someone’s land. Going forward, there are
three options the government is considering. Which approach would you support?
Base: All respondents, n=480
“I have seen where projects have been altered
after easements have been signed. There was no
consulting with the people who signed and these
were the people most affected.”
45
ONLINE APPROVAL
During the in-person session, participants were asked if they would support or oppose a process whereby
new high risk drainage licence requests be posted on the WSA website for public consultation prior to
approval. Online community members strongly supported this approach. This support is further validated
through the quantitative survey whereby three quarters of respondents (75%) stating that they support
the idea. While a majority of farmers are supportive of this idea, their support is lower than that of non-
farmers (69% vs. 84%).
42 % 33 % 75 % Strongly support
Somewhat support
Q19. Do you support or oppose having high risk drainage licence requests posted on the
WSA website for public consultation before approval. Base: All respondents, n=480
Public consultation before approval of high risk projects
46
APPENDIX I – ONLINE DISCUSSION TOPICS
Drainage: When, How, Organized and Illegal:
- When drainage is allowed to proceed, what conditions should be required, if any?
- Formal organized drainage refers to landowners working together, perhaps through a
conservation area authority, to develop drainage works. How important is formal, organized
drainage and where is it most critical?
- What actions should be taken to address existing drainage activity that has not been approved
but should require approval?
- In what situations should drainage be allowed? In what situations should it not be allowed?
Suggested Ideas from the Panel:
- A suggestion has been made that local water boards be created to manage drainage. If such
boards were created, what role should they have? How would such a board function? How would
the Board members be selected?
- Several comments have referred to needing to control the release of water. Should having a
control gate, so water is released only after the peak flows have gone by, be a condition of
approval of drainage? If so, in what situations?
- A suggestion made in one of the previous sessions is that a farmer be required to retain at least
some wetlands on their land as a condition of approval for drainage. What are your thoughts on
this?
- What would an effective process to resolve drainage disputes between neighbours look like?
Please be as specific as possible.
Hydrological and Environmental Aspects:
- The degree of regulation over the construction/operations of drainage works should reflect
hydrological or environmental risks. Should low risk projects follow a general code of practice
while greater risk projects require more review and possible approval through a permit process?
What kinds of things would make a project low risk versus high risk? Would this make things
easier or harder for stakeholders?
- Drainage produces many benefits but can also create problems. If potential or existing
hydrological or environmental impacts cannot be adequately mitigated, should the drainage be
disallowed?
- Should drainage projects be required to align with hydrological and environmental targets that
reflect both local circumstances and provincial objectives? What types of things should be
considered?
47
Drainage Benefits, Costs and Damages:
- Previously this online community discussed whether or not drainage should be designed and built
to avoid downstream impacts such as flooding or environmental degradation. If such works are
developed, who should pay the cost, including design, construction, land control and
maintenance, of doing it right? Should the costs to build and maintain be the same for everyone
affected or should those who benefit more from the drainage system pay a different amount?
Why? How would this look?
Risk Management:
- How important is it that existing works be regulated in the same manner as new works, so as to
mitigate risks? Would this be an appropriate approach and what should be considered if such an
approach were taken? PLEASE REFER TO THE INITIAL POST BY PANEL MANAGER FOR THE FULL
DESCRIPTION.
- Risk level was a topic of an earlier discussion in this forum and a few determining factors of risk
level were suggested by the group. The WSA is presenting their definition of RISK, RISK
ASSESSMENT and RISK MANAGEMENT, along with the FACTORS to assess impacts of drainage.
Please read the full description on the initial post by Panel Manager and let us know if the factors
presented are appropriate or if there is anything missing.
- WSA proposes an approach to regulation and compliance based upon risk levels. Please read the
full description on the initial post by Panel Manager and tell us the concerns and/or benefits you
see with the proposed approach.
- At times unauthorized drainage will have caused property or environmental damage. The
question is who should be responsible for repairing the damage? Should new drainage
regulations require that the drainer repair or compensate for such damage?
- Organized drainage often leads to better drainage projects with fewer problems between
neighbours. In areas with many problems where a organized drainage system could resolve many
of the problems, should Water Security Agency have the power to force landowners to work
together, possibly through creation of a conservation and development authority, to develop
organized drainage?
Licenses:
- An important step to good drainage is to ensure people who are doing drainage understand best
practices. There are several ways government could do this. One option is to create a license to
construct drainage works, like having a driver’s license. To do drainage, one would need to
demonstrate an understanding of good practices.
- This license could be set up as a requirement for those involved in drainage. Alternatively,
obtaining the license could be optional but incentives would be provided to those who have a
48
license such as less review and a faster approval process for drainage works. Would some type of
license to drain be a useful component of the drainage regulation process?
Complaints:
- Would you support or oppose the following if it was put in place as part of the new agricultural
drainage policy: In cases of complaints, the WSA will immediately order closure of a noncompliant
drain, and then consider a licensing request. A licensed project will stay open, but WSA will review
the claim of damage to determine if the drainage approval needs to be altered if a report by a
qualified person supports the allegation of damage.
Closing Thoughts:
- Please provide any final thoughts you have before we close this forum and thank you for your
participation!
49
APPENDIX II – IN-PERSON MEETING MATERIALS
Agricultural Drainage Consultation
Travelodge Hotel Saskatoon
Room: Concorde 1
February 6th
, 2014
9:00am – 4:30pm
Agenda
8:30 - 9:00 – Breakfast/Registration
9:00 – 9:10 –Introductions, opening remarks, housekeeping – Insightrix
9:10 – 9:30 – WSA presentation
9:30 – 10:30 – Discuss policy principles
10:30 – 10:40 – Break
10:40 – 12:00 – Discuss policy approaches
12:00 – 12:45 – Lunch
12:45 – 1:00 – Summarize discussion points regarding principles and approaches
1:00 – 1:45 – Discuss policy outcomes
1:45 – 2:30 – Discuss additional considerations
2:30 – 2:45 – Coffee Break
2:45 – 3:30 – Continue discussion on additional considerations
3:30 – 4:00 – Additional thoughts from participants
4:00 – 4:30 – Summary of items discussed & wrap up
Materials for Review:
The following ideas are presented for the group’s consideration. They reflect some of the ideas that have
arisen in discussions on the online forum and in past consultations on drainage.
Policy Principles – For consideration and discussion
1. Drainage is not a right; if potential or existing hydrological or environmental impacts cannot be
adequately mitigated, the drainage should not be allowed. Proponents must be educated to best
management practices around drainage.
2. The degree of regulation over the construction or operations of drainage works should reflect
hydrological and environmental risks.
3. Those who benefit from drainage should bear the costs of appropriate drainage design and
management, including damage prevention and mitigation.
50
4. Where drainage is allowed, drainage projects should align with hydrological and environmental
objectives / targets that reflect both local circumstances and provincial objectives.
5. The responsibility for land control and civil liability for impacts rests solely with project owners.
6. The regulatory process should remain distinct from any process related to assessment of damages.
7. Parties claiming damages as a result of drainage should have adequate access to resolution and
compensation. Direct costs of the process should be reasonably assessed to the party causing the
impact.
Policy Goals – For consideration and discussion
1. Effective prevention, remediation and compliance tools to address risks and impacts of drainage.
2. Direction of resources and regulatory controls toward high risk activities and areas and away from
lower risk activities and areas.
3. Increased implementation of drainage best management practices and reduced hydrological and
environmental risks related to drainage.
4. Integration of the management of hydrological and environmental impacts and risks associated with
drainage.
5. Reduction of non-compliance with regulatory requirements to a reasonable and acceptable level.
6. Satisfactory and fair resolution of individual drainage disputes and costs borne by the offending
party.
Policy Approaches – For consideration and discussion
1. Classify and regulate drainage activities according to potential risks.
a. Require a registration, rather than an approval, to document the existence of drainage activity
where no approval to construct or operate is required.
b. Require best management practices and minimization and/or mitigation of risks as part of
standards and approval conditions.
c. Require approvals for those drainage activities that are in a high risk category or in areas with
high ecological/hydrological value or risk (e.g., closed basins/wetland impact).
2. Make existing drainage works subject to the approval/registration requirements.
a. Allow a period of time for owners of existing drainage projects to apply/register.
b. In some cases, owners may be required to close, alter, or remediate damages caused by existing
works.
3. In some cases, require specific design and operating conditions on approvals in order to mitigate
negative impacts on downstream water quality, aquatic habitat/wetlands, flooding, and natural flow
regimes.
51
4. Consider both environmental and hydrological impacts and associated risks in the regulation of
drainage.
5. In areas of extensive drainage, enable the province to require organized drainage in order to
appropriately manage drainage activities and mitigate cumulative effects.
6. Put in place an effective compliance strategy that includes education and appropriate enforcement
powers, such as the ability to impose administrative penalties, voluntary payments, notices of
violation, stop work orders, orders for closure of works, orders requiring third party investigation and
orders for remedial action.
7. Enable the WSA to require remedial action where it determines that drainage activity has led to or
may pose a risk of significant environmental or hydrological damages, including damages related to
cumulative effects of multiple activities (e.g., flooding, erosion, sediment or nutrient increases in water
bodies/impacts on wetlands).
8. No longer require proof that land control has been registered against title as a condition of drainage
authorization. Make proponents aware of the legal risk and that they will bear liability if they choose
to proceed with drainage without registered land control.
9. Direct damages claims to a mediated or an arbitrated resolution or through the courts or a specific
tribunal.
Additional Considerations:
1. Risk-based regulation – considerations for registration, review and permits
2. Mitigating negative impacts of drainage – considerations for drainage limits and education
3. Encouraging organized drainage
4. Drainage & interest registration on land title (land control) – considerations & WSA’s role
5. Drainage complaint process – considerations for the following
a. WSA’s role
b. WSA’s authority & enforcement
c. Cost allocations for damages
6. Education on compliance – key messages
52
APPENDIX III – QUESTIONNAIRE
WSA TELEPHONE / ONLINE SURVEY
Ver 3.1 (April 1, 2014)
Quotas
Method (based on sample) Sample size
Telephone interviews 300
Online panel
(estimated 50% response rate) 150
TOTAL 450
Respondent type (flexible –
do not terminate) Sample size
Farmer 350
Local government
representative 50
NGO, CAA, WS Association 30
General public 20
TOTAL 450
Introduction
[Online panel]
Dear Ag Drainage Online Citizen Panel member. Thank you for your continued participation in the online
community. Please take a few minutes to complete the following online survey. The results will be used
to help the WSA finalize components of the new agricultural drainage policy.
[Telephone] Hello! My name is ____________ and I am calling from Insightrix Research in Saskatoon. We
are conducting a survey on behalf of the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency with respect to issues
related to agricultural drainage. The survey will take approximately 12 minutes of your time. All the
information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and reported in an aggregate form only and the
results will be used to help the WSA finalize components of the new agricultural drainage policy.
53
Background & Top of Mind Impressions
1. To begin are you a… (read list, select all that apply)
Farmer / primary producer (growing crops, raising livestock, etc.)
A representative of local government such as an RM, community, Reserve, or Metis Local
A representative of a community organization or NGO related to agricultural drainage
A representative of a Conservation and Development Area Authority or Watershed Association
None of the above
2. What first comes to mind when you think of agricultural drainage in Saskatchewan? (probe fully)
Record verbatim
3. Broadly speaking which of the following three statements best reflects your opinion as it relates to
drainage of water on agricultural lands? (read items)
[randomize order]
Agricultural drainage is essential to allow farmers to manage their land and maintain and improve the
viability of their operations and should be allowed to proceed with minimal restrictions.
Agricultural drainage poses a serious risk to downstream residents and landowners and to water
quality and should not be allowed.
Agricultural drainage is essential to agriculture, but must be carefully designed and implemented to
minimize downstream impacts [always last]
None of the above (do not read)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
[skip to next section if farmer NOT selected in Q1]
4. Are any parts of your farm land...
Suffering from insufficient drainage
Affected by upstream drainage
Neither (do not read)
54
5. How much does agricultural drainage impact your farming operation in…(read list)
A positive way
A negative way
A great deal
Somewhat
Not very much
Not at all
Prefer not to say (do not read)
6. Within the past 5 years, have you drained any of your farm land by means such as construction of
permanent channels or ditches, landscaping, v-ditches, scraping, tile drainage, etc.?
Yes
No
Not at all
Prefer not to say (do not read)
Policy Opinions
7. In your opinion, how effective are current agricultural drainage policies at addressing risks and
impacts of drainage? This includes prevention, education, remediation and enforcement of
compliance. (telephone: would you say the current policy is…)
Very effective
Somewhat effective
Not very effective
Not effective at all
Not sure (do not read)
8. In your opinion, how important is it for Saskatchewan to develop a new agricultural drainage policy?
(read scale)
Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not important at all
Not sure (do not read)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
55
How important is it that a new agricultural drainage policy address each of the following? (read item and
scale)
[randomize order]
Preventing damage to downstream landowners and residents
Preventing erosion that would impact receiving lakes
Preventing negative impacts on water quality in receiving water bodies
Preventing downstream flooding
Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not important at all
Not sure (do not read)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
9. Next I’m going to read out a number of potential things that could be considered part of a new
agricultural drainage policy and I’d like to know whether you would broadly support or oppose each
of these ideas? Please be assured there are no right or wrong answers. It’s just your opinion that
counts. (Telephone: The first one is… (read item SLOWLY then read the scale))
[randomize order]
Drainage should only be allowed if the negative impacts of such drainage can be minimized. [always
first]
All parties who benefit from drainage should bear the costs to design and manage such drainage
activities, including damage prevention.
Those who drain should be educated as to the best management practices around drainage.
The degree of regulation of drainage works should be based on the amount of risk involved (assume
that risk levels would be defined).
Regulatory requirements should be put in place to minimize non-compliance.
Processes should be put in place to ensure fair resolution of individual drainage disputes
Those who feel they are being negatively impacted by drainage should have adequate access to
compensation and resolution
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know (do not read)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
56
10. To the best of your knowledge, do all drainage activities currently require provincial government
approval, regardless of how big or small they are?
Yes
No
Not sure (do not read)
11. Moving forward how do you think the WSA should proceed with respect to high risk projects?
Should… (read options SLOWLY) (if necessary / display online: “Please base your answer on what you
deem to be a high risk project.”)
ALL high risk activities require approval
Require high risk activities to simply be registered with the government through an online process
Allow high risk activities to proceed without notifying the government at all
Something else: __________________
Not sure (do not read)
12. And moving forward, how do you think the WSA should proceed with respect to lower risk
projects? Should… (read options SLOWLY) (if necessary / display online: “Please base your answer on
what you deem to be a low risk project.”)
ALL low risk activities require approval
Require low risk activities to simply be registered with the government through an online process
Allow low risk activities to proceed without notifying the government at all
Something else: __________________
Not sure (do not read)
13. Thinking about existing drainage works that have not received provincial government approval, do
you feel that such works…
Should be allowed to continue without any approval or registration
Should be simply registered with the provincial government through an online process
Should require approval or registration consistent with the new policy within a reasonable time frame
such as 5 or 10 years
Something else: __________________
No opinion on the matter (do not read)
Not sure (do not read)
57
14. For new and or existing projects that will require an approval, do you agree or disagree with each of
the following? (read item, scale)
[randomize order]
The applicants will need to follow specific design and operation standards and rules
Private, qualified professionals will be required to approve drainage works.
Project organizers will be required to repair any damages caused
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Depends on the situation
No opinion on the matter (do not read)
Not sure (do not read)
15. Thinking about wetlands, please rate your agreement with each of the following statements: (read
item, scale)
[randomize order]
Wetlands are very important and while drainage activities that remove floodwater from fields are fine,
all wetlands should be retained.
Drainage of wetlands is an acceptable part of agriculture because it is unrealistic to expect farmers to
give up the potential production or to drive large machinery around many small wetlands.
Drainage of wetlands is acceptable, but the policy should ensure that some larger, more permanent
wetlands are retained.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
No opinion on the matter (do not read)
Not sure (do not read)
58
16. With respect to education, there are some options being considered. Do you agree or disagree with
each of the following? (read item, scale)
The government should provide access to useful educational materials on drainage best
management practices.
The government should require those who undertake drainage to acquire certification before
draining, similar to obtaining a Driver’s Licence before being able to operate a vehicle. (such
certification would be developed by the government)
The government should provide an incentive to those who acquire certification in the form of fast-
tracked approvals.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
No opinion on the matter (do not read)
Not sure (do not read)
[put the next two questions on the same page]
17. In areas where there is extensive drainage activity, the provincial government is considering options
related to the formation of organized drainage authorities. Please rate your agreement with each of
the following statements. (read item, scale)
Landowners in these areas should continue to voluntarily come together to form legal entities to
facilitate organized drainage as is currently the case.
The province should be able to require the formation of organized drainage authorities in these
areas.
The provincial government simply disallowing any new drainage in these areas until the formation of
an organized drainage authority is created, regardless of whether such organizations form on their
own or through government intervention.
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
No opinion on the matter (do not read)
Not sure (do not read)
59
18. Do you support or oppose having high risk drainage license requests posted on the WSA website for
public consultation before approval? (read scale)
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Not sure (do not read)
19. Turning to compliance and enforcement, which of the following two options would you prefer? (read
items)
[randomize order of statements]
The government proactively enforces compliance with regulations such as fines, penalties, stop
work orders, etc.
OR
The government relies on a complaint-based enforcement system from landowners and then
investigates the situation
Don’t know (do not read)
20. Regardless of which method is used, do you support or oppose the WSA having enforcement
powers to impose things like administrative penalties, voluntary payments, notices of violation, stop
work orders, orders for closure of works, and orders for remedial action related to agricultural
drainage? (read scale)
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Not sure (do not read)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
60
21. Presently, a licensed drainage project requires the registration of an easement on land titles if water is
crossing over someone’s land. Going forward, there are three options the government is considering.
Which approach would you support? (read items)
Keep things as they are now (i.e. require that the WSA see a registration on land title before
approving licensed drainage)
Require an agreement or contract from the parties involved indicating that they are aware of and
accept the impacts of the drainage activity.
Simply make proponents aware of the legal risks and that they will bear liability if they choose to
proceed with drainage without registered land control.
Another option: ______________
Not sure (do not read)
Demographics
Finally, we have a few more questions to help us profile your answers. Please be assured that your
answers will be kept strictly confidential.
22. Have you ever been involved in a drainage complaint?
Yes
No
23. What is your main farm activity? (read list if necessary)
Grains and other crops
Livestock and cropping (i.e. mixed farm)
Livestock only [skip next question]
Horticulture, Vegetables or Fruits
Other: Please specify__________
24. How many cultivated acres will your farming operation be this coming season, including land you may
rent?
(Notes for interviewers:
640 acres are in a section and 1 section = 4 quarters
160 acres are in a quarter
80 acres = .5 of a quarter
40 acres = .25 of a quarter)
61
____ cultivated acres [0 decimals, copy response over to new variable]
OR
_____ quarters [allow for 2 decimals; calculate acres and put in new variable][programming – use
question from Ag Land Lease study]
Not sure/Prefer not to say
25. Record gender / Please indicate your gender
Male
Female
26. Into which of the following age ranges do you fall? (read list)
18 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65+
Prefer not to say (do not read)
27. What is the highest level of education you have achieved? (read list if necessary)
Some high school
Completed high school
Some technical school or college
Completed technical or college diploma
Some university
Completed university degree (Undergrad, Masters or PhD)
Prefer not to say (do not read)
28. This concludes our study. Do you have any other comments to add? [not required]
Textbox
62
29. In this study, we are attempting to reach as many farmers and other stakeholders as possible. Would
you be willing to give me the name and telephone number of anyone else that you believe would
want to provide input on what we discussed this evening?
Name: ____________
Phone number: ___________
Once again thank you very much for your participation…it is greatly appreciated. Have a great day!!
