Green Infrastructure

During the period 2003 through 2010, the Green Infrastructure Partnership played a prominent role in leading change and assisting with implementation of the Water Sustainability Action Plan for British Columbia. “I see my years of chairing the GIP as helping to get the ball rolling and ideas disseminated, on green infrastructure, all of which has subsequently been taken up by others to a much greater degree of implementation and success. Our efforts in the first decade of the 2000s moved the state of-the-art of green infrastructure to a more mainstream level,” said Paul Ham.

The desire to mitigate environmental impacts provided a driver for a ‘green infrastructure’ movement that is water-centric and is founded on a natural systems approach. In 2007, the first Beyond the Guidebook guidance document provided a clear distinction between natural and engineered green infrastructure. “Two complementary strategies can ‘green’ a community and its infrastructure: first, preserving as much as possible of the natural green infrastructure; and secondly, promoting designs that soften the footprint of development,” wrote Susan Rutherford.

“Collaboration between the Partnership and Asset Management BC is a success story because it is relationship-based and founded on respect and trust. The genesis for operationalizing both the Partnership and Asset Management BC in 2010, and for our shared commitment to collaboration, is a mandate to implement action items spelled out in Living Water Smart. We embrace and commit to Shared Responsibility in order to move ideas and approaches forward through the 4Cs – Communicate, Cooperate, Collaborate, Coordinate,” stated Kim Stephens.

“Lately I have been reminding folks that in the 1970s, Canada saw an infrastructure funding boom – everyone built arenas, pools, sewers and water systems on 25 cent dollars. The problem is not aging infrastructure. The problem is the decades that we did not pay attention to it. This inattention created the infrastructure gap! No one thought about the need to replace, or maintain, all those pipes and buildings. And no one could have anticipated the dramatic escalation in replacement costs, now at 100% dollars. So, the infrastructure gap grows,” stated Bill Sims.

“Drainage has long been a galvanizing issue for sustainable development. The cumulative impacts of land use changes on stream function are proven. Streamside protection regulation is a fact of life. We understand how to turn problems into solutions. But we keep failing to overcome inertia,” stated Richard Boase. Restoration of urban watershed health is an unfulfilled promise. Inertia stymies universal, consistent implementation of effective standards of development practice. How do you overcome inertia? Peer-based learning plus collaboration across boundaries!

“Part of the vision for GRIN is to use green roofs to break down silos. If we truly acknowledged the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and loneliness epidemic, there would be green roofs everywhere. We have the tools. We just need political will, and critical mass,” stated Christine Thuring. The “story behind the story” is that Christine Thuring and her GRIN colleagues are committed to putting green roofs back on municipal radar screens. They have a vision, they have a plan, and they are doing outreach. It takes passion, hard work, and perseverance to have mission impact.

“Metro Vancouver faces increasing resistance to provincially mandated Transit-Oriented Area (TOA) development amid concerns over the impacts of rapid densification. Without coordinated planning, this growth risks producing fragmented, unaffordable, and poorly serviced communities. Now that Metro region mayors have called on the Province to repeal ill-conceived housing legislation, this creates a unique opportunity for a course correction because the housing density issue hits everybody literally where they live. It is not esoteric,” stated Patrick Condon.

“At conferences, it is great to hear about the amazing work that everybody has done. A couple of years ago, Mike and I concluded we also need a bit of space to talk about how we have screwed up. Once we became co-chairs of the Asset Management BC community of practice, we could make our safe space forum idea happen. We did not want it to be a bitch session. We wanted it to be a learning session. We wanted everyone to think through how we contribute and how we add to the solution to help the conversation be productive for everyone involved,” stated Gracelyn Day.

Two unifying threads weave through Part D. Thread One was that the provincial government provided green infrastructure leadership during this period, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs mantra being: Today’s expectations are tomorrow’s standards. Thread Two was the regulatory requirement that Metro Vancouver municipalities develop integrated plans pursuant to the rainwater (aka “streams and trees”) component of the region’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan. This provided a reason for convening for action!

“We define a balanced approach as one that creates liveable communities and also protects stream health. During the period 2006-2011, the leadership teams for the intergovernmental Water Balance Partnership and the cross-sector Green Infrastructure Partnership aligned efforts and collaborated to deliver program elements under the umbrella of convening for action. With hindsight, this was a golden period when the influence of the Georgia Basin Initiative peaked. Success built on success and the successes came in rapid succession,” stated Kim Stephens.

“Looking at the length of the list of milestones and reflecting on the array of initiatives, it is amazing how much we were able to pack into such a short period of time. A phrase that best describes this era is commitment to collaboration. Senior government, regional government, municipalities. We were all in the room learning together, working together, sharing. It truly was a team approach. We were outcome-oriented. Our mantra was create livable communities and protect stream health,” explained Richard Boase, a principal player for event delivery during the period 2006 through 2011.

“In 2008, the recession was not a great time to introduce Living Water Smart. We knew that rather than spread ourselves too thin, we had to hunker down. We focused our efforts on legislative reform and what would become the Water Sustainability Act. Living Water Smart was broad sweeping. The Province did not have the capacity to implement everything at once. We had to put our investment in what was needed badly…an update of the legislative framework. The Partnership showed that they were able to fill a gap with the convening for action program,” stated Lynn Kriwoken.

“The Water Balance Model and Green Infrastructure partnerships were formed within a year of each other, in 2002 and 2003. The Water Balance Model Partnership came first because this scenario modelling tool was developed as an extension of the Stormwater Guidebook. Our initial successes raised awareness and interest such that the UBCM leadership gave us a platform at their 2003 UBCM convention. This resulted from the advocacy of Gibson Mayor Barry Janyk. Kim Stephens asked Chilliwack’s Dipak Basu to help tell our WBM story,” stated Ted van der Gulik.