Course:IGS585/OK2020WT2/GuestNelsonJatel

Nelson Jatel - Okanagan Basin Water Board

To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.

If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.

	Reflection Authors and Commenters
Author	Janna Wale	Adam Kunis	Ayla de Grandpre	Joshua Ayer	Ian Chambers
Commenter	Ayla de Grandpre	Joshua Ayer	Ian Chambers	Adam Kunis	Janna Wale

Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.

Ayla De Grandpre Nelson’s presentation resonated with me on many levels. Given my experience as a student in the water engineering technology program here in Kelowna, I was aware of many of the initial case-studies that Nelson discussed. One area of key interest for me in the first part of the presentation was the discussion on the re-introduction of the Sockeye salmon in the Okanagan. I recently read an article by Terbasket and Shields (2019), titled “Sylix perspectives on original food: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, which explores the importance of many staple wild foods for the Sylix Peoples, including salmon. For the Sylix, salmon is sacred and is revered as one of the four food chiefs, governing the living beings in the water. Nelson’s discussion on the disappearance of the salmon due to colonial influences (specifically the damming of the Columbia River) resonated with me on an emotional level, given our governance’s inattentiveness of the importance of this resource, culturally, spiritually and as a means of subsistence for these People. I think that when we are making decisions around such an essential and shared resource, the interests of all stakeholders need to be accounted for – human and non-human. We can clearly learn a lot from the Sylix Peoples who, as Nelson showed us in the graph showing the decline of stocks over time since pre-colonial times, were clearly very effective stewards of the waterways and resources like salmon. I have really come to understand the complicated nature of water governance, and the importance of considering who the winners and losers of policy decisions. Another part of this presentation that I resonated with was the discussion around the future of water, in regards to the limits of provisioning human development and the pressures of sustained growth in the valley. Nelson answered my question about the limits of growth in relation to water in a way that I have not heard before. I really appreciated him bringing to attention the fact that the Okanagan could in theory support a much larger population, if we were to forget ecological values (such as the provision of ecological services and fish habitat). However, if we are to consider these values that are essential to human life (though perhaps indirectly beneficial), that we are starting to push up against the boundaries of water capacity in the valley. Given that current values tend to favour the economy, particularly real-estate, over ecological values, I agree with Nelson that the current outlook is bleak. This discussion of values reminded me of a section in the book “Parks and Protected Areas in Canada” by Dearden and Rollins. Specifically, they outline the key ways that nature can be valued: as an art galley, a “zoo”, a playground, a movie theatre, a cathedral, a factory, a museum, a bank, a hospital, a laboratory and a schoolroom. I think that our culture fails to consider the plethora of ways that our resources provide value to us, and we often take it for granted. Nelson’s presentation reminded me of the importance of ecological education and inclusive governance in moving forward into a sustainable and resilient future. Ian Chambers Ayla, Thanks for your reflection! I really resonated with your comments and actually used many similar points in my own reflection. It seems to me that the discourse around sustainability really seems to center around this idea that there is some sort of miraculous solution that will make us “sustainable”. However, I’ve began to think of sustainability as a societal issue that requires a cultural shift. Our culture has reached a point where knowledge and technology has allowed us to meet our needs and we are now using that knowledge and technology to focus on our wants. Unfortunately, not everyone’s needs are being met and we seem to be more focused on meeting the wants of those in more privileged positions. I think a cultural shift is needed to meet the needs of everyone before meeting the wants of the privileged. By the needs for everyone, I think back to Lauren Terbasket’s presentation and try to frame everyone to include non-human beings as well. The needs of the environment, the non-human beings and the resources also need to be recognized, considered and met. Your reflection made me think of this, because similarly to my reflection, you talked about how the main focus in our culture always seems to be economics, which is driving the population growth in the Okanagan and threatening our water security. You also talked about the power relations in our culture, specifically those between settlers and the indigenous communities. I think there is a connection between these power relations and our focus on economics – the economy mostly benefits those already in power. I think you are right that inclusive governance and ecological education are key to moving forward but I worry they are not enough to facilitate this cultural change. I believe education is the most powerful tool to facilitate change, but unfortunately not everyone is as keen on education as we as graduate students appear to be. How do you educate or teach somebody that has no interest in the topic or challenging the status quo? Perhaps inclusive government is the best place to start, but that makes me wonder about the challenges of getting those in privileged positions to, in a sense, relinquish some of their power. Thanks again for your reflection, and sorry for the somewhat tangential rant =)

Adam Kunis I really enjoyed Nelson’s holistic approach to watershed governance. His ability to carefully address critical and complex components in a clear and articulate fashion is a skill that I hope to develop. By layering economic, social-cultural, and environmental concerns surrounding the Okanagan watershed with fantastic visuals, his presentation kept me engaged from start to finish. As a backcountry skier, I pay careful attention to water cycles as they greatly affect the quality and safety of my sport. When Nelson displayed the visual showing extremes in regional precipitation patterns, my concern grew. We are currently in a La Niña weather cycle which historically causes colder temperatures and greater snowfall in the British Columbia region. Despite that, we have had an extremely mild winter with glacial and snow melt run off starting early. This in itself has the capacity to influence summer extremes of drought and forest fire and I am concerned that if the coming El Niño (warmer, dryer) correlates with the expected three-year drought period (which Nelson explained we are still waiting for) then there could be major environmental threats. Although Nelson expressed his concern for the threats, he was excellent about not pandering to fear and pivoted the conversation to effective governance and successful examples of transformation. His consideration of the salmon population was really engaging as he showed that the reintroduction of this species has impacts on society and culture, the environment, and the economy. Successful adaptations such as this require coordinated teamwork and he highlighted leadership as one of the key factors in making transformation successful. I loved his quote, “If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together”. Since salmon travel together from the rivers to the lakes to the oceans and back, it requires strong leaders across many regions to come together to ensure the salmon’s passage. I hope this level of leadership can also be applied to the forestry industry as rapid deforestation and improper replanting increases runoff, the presence of invasive species, risk of forest fire, and risk of avalanche. Lastly, the implementation of polycentricity was confusing to me, but I can see its potential value. As someone who currently lives in one of Kelowna’s last remaining areas of wetlands, I support any means to protect this threatened environment. Perhaps Nelson’s polycentricity approach may provide the additional data needed to measure against the dollar value for the development of the land. Joshua Ayer Hey Adam, I've lost track of how many of your reflections I have enjoyed reflecting/commenting on, but its been a few now and I appreciate the way you incorporate your sport and recreational enjoyment of the environment into your reflection. Its nice to have a perspective on some of the personal stakes you have in sustaining ecosystems that extend beyond their utility to something intrinsically enjoyable that your passionate about, as I think this can be a contagious attitude, and a very fruitful one for sustainability. I liked that you focused on the level of calm and realism in Nelson's presentation, it is so easy to slip into ecological anxiety when talking about sustainability, and I also really appreciated his pivot to effective governance. In my own reflection I responded to this pivot a little less positively than you did but you've given me the opportunity to re-think my initial reaction. I thought overall that Nelson's presentation was truly thought provoking, but talking about water supply as balancing trade-offs between different visions seemed almost too blunt to me at the time. Your view of this being a constructive pivot out of climate pessimism into a more positive sphere I think is a better one, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to see it that way.

Janna Wale

Overall, I found Nelson’s presentation easy to follow and was able to relate to a lot of the issues that he talked about when talking about how salmon are being affected by changes in hydrology within the Okanagan Basin. My own community is also a salmon community, and is also looking at how salmon are being impacted by changes in snowpack and disruptions in the historic water cycle in the area. Especially his point about having higher highs and lower lows due to climate change. This is something that I am exploring in my own research. Furthering this, I really appreciated the holistic approach to this presentation. When discussing more science-heavy topics, it is easy to get lost in the detail and complexity of the interactions that are taking place. I found Nelson’s presentation to be relatively free of jargon, which is something that I appreciate from a knowledge transmission perspective. Moving forward, presenting like Nelson is something that I strive towards when I present my own work.

Something that stuck out to me during this presentation was the map of all the hydroelectric dams currently or historically operating on the Columbia River. Since BC is predominately powered by hydroelectricity (which is considered and is marketed as green energy), something that is often forgotten is the impact that these run of river dams can have on the surrounding riparian areas and fish and wildlife populations. So many of these dams that are currently operational are not equipped with adequate fish passage, and significantly alter the surrounding riparian area, which can have cascading effects in the surrounding watershed. From a holistic perspective, this is something that needs to be further discussed, and appropriately managed. Thinking about what I know about Syilx culture, salmon is an important sustenance species, but would be important culturally as well. I appreciated that Nelson acknowledged this distinction in his presentation.

Finally, the explanation of polycentric governance was interesting. I think I would need to spend more time researching it myself, but I can see how it might be successful if implemented correctly. The idea of having a decentralized governance system actually reminds me a little bit of our feast hall system, where power is delineated between different groups and at different levels within that group. This could be an interesting idea to explore when thinking about potential for government to government agreements. Having decision-making and governance structures that are transferable between regions and cultures is something that is becoming more important to resource management, and it was cool to hear about something I had never really heard about discussed in this way.

Ayla De Grandpre

Janna,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I also really enjoyed Nelson's discussion on the impacts of damming the Columbia River. I honestly wish that he would have gone deeper into this discussion - as someone who spent a lot of time salmon fishing with my grandpa, who is a fisherman by trade, I feel a very strong connection to this species of fish. As I discussed in my reflection, and you have alluded to in your own - salmon is both a source of spiritual, cultural and physical sustenance for the Sylix Peoples, here in the Okanagan. I remember the first time I heard the story of the four food chiefs at a Westbank First Nation event, and noting the level of reverence and respect for these four chiefs - including Ntyxtix, the salmon chief of the water beings. I think that part of what is missing from the dominant culture's sustainability outlook and strategy is this culture of eco-centric sustainability demonstrated by the Sylix Peoples and a reverence for the other beings that we share the land with. I also really appreciated Nelson's attention to the importance of the salmon to this region.

Lastly, like you, I thought the idea of polycentricity was interesting, but I didn't feel like I fully understood the concept. Reading your comment helped me understand how this theory could be translated and applied in the real world. I am now thinking about how polycentricity might be an interesting way to describe the complex governance structures of certain resources, such as water, and the web of actors involved , in our system dynamics model.

Joshua Ayer There are two components of Nelson’s presentation that I want to focus on, though of they are inter-related and are ultimately rooted in his thoughts on the importance of culture in sustainability.  First, he said that, accepting environmental trade-offs, the Okanagan could conceivable support the immigration of a million more people.  Though I was reflexively jarred by the implications of the environmental trade-offs that would be necessary to support this influx of migrators, I recognize the wisdom of what Nelson is suggesting; that the decision to regulate this influx has to come from governing decisions dependent on the values of the culture and society whose decisions are ultimately being advanced – which leads me to the second component that I appreciated in Nelson’s presentation. Nelson argued that the amount of people that the Okanagan could sustain is dependent on how we want the Okanagan to look, or what our vision of its future is.  Nelson said the danger of looking at water as a limiting factor is that it is, in reality, truly not a limiting factor as a matter of development.  To call it a limiting factor takes for granted that the rest of life in the watershed, depending on the water, has value that is worth limiting human development for, which within the development paradigm of the local governments is not dependably consistent. As John mentioned in his response to Nelson, the expansion of real estate is entwined with employment, you cannot slow down one without causing repercussions in the other. In the literature I’ve read this is often framed as a societal addiction to growth. I think the danger that Nelson articulated really well is that a future where water use and population growth is balanced is possible but also competing with another vision development that has a high potential to end in a tragedy of the commons scenario. I think this tension is very pronounced in a place like Keremeos that not only wants to develop, but is one of those places that needs to develop and grow if it is to sustain itself into the future. Keremeos is in a phase economically where the consequences of not growing its economy will be worse than unemployment (as bad as unemployment is). As a final note, I really valued Nelson’s remark that ‘now that we’re here its not appropriate to close the doors’ on migration to the Okanagan, particularly as it pertains to the area’s history of settler colonialism.  I am not sure I have heard that argument articulated that way before, especially because normally when I am researching it is in reference to other places where I myself have not re-located.  To talk about the population density that the Okanagan could sustain as a reflection on my own right to be here made me quite self-conscious of my personal lack of any right to live here right now on land that I not only deplete of resources but is first and foremost unceded. Adam Kunis Josh, your reflection has helped put Nelson's point in perspective for me as I can now imagine that all major cities appear radically different by prioritizing population capacity. I think back to my home city of Atlanta and how it has radically changed even in my lifetime. As an urban environment maybe people do not have the same connection to water and the natural ecosystem and thus are willing to accept those tradeoffs. Your comment on the tragedy of the commons holds true and I can see a similar scenario happening here in Kelowna. However, what happens when the next generation arrives and they have no recollection of what the land once was? What new commodity would the tragedy of the commons be centered on if not water and natural ecosystems (is that even possible)? Your perspective on colonialism is appreciated and I agree that even though we have this mentality of closing doors (which I am guilty of) that for communities such as Keremeos it is essential to be kept open. Thanks for the insightful reflection!

Ian Chambers Nelson provided a great presentation, but I must admit that it left me feeling rather pessimistic. I believe it was Ayla that asked Nelson about the limits of the Okanagan water supply in relation to population growth. Nelson provided a great answer highlighting that the limits depend on what we value. If we value nothing other than economics, the valley could theoretically support many more people but at the expense of the environment. If we do value the environment then we are likely pushing up against the human capacity limit currently. This left me pessimistic because it is pretty clear that growth in the Okanagan is going to continue. I find it very frustrating that economics always seems to be the top priority in our culture. Nelson also discussed the salmon in the Okanagan, and how they have been largely negatively affected since settlers arrived. A big contribution to their decline has been the damning of the Columbia River. This made me think about how there is so much emphasis on green energy currently, but even damns that produce hydroelectric power have negative impacts on ecosystems. I know that salmon passages can be constructed, but you are still controlling what would be a natural flow based on environmental factors. Additionally, you are flooding upstream environments, and many riparian ecosystems are very sensitive and fragile. No matter what we do, there always seems to be negative impacts. Our current system seems to try and limit or minimize these impacts, but are there ways that we can actually benefit the ecosystem? I don’t think minimizing impacts on the environment is sufficient, our economic system is built on unrestricted growth. If we have exponential population growth and a net negative impact on the environment per person, it doesn’t matter how small that negative impact is, at some point there won’t be any environment left. We need to have either a net zero impact or preferably a net positive impact. Janna Wale Ian, I agree, I definitely left feeling similarly. I also feel very frustrated with the importance always being placed on our economy, especially when only a certain percentage of our population sees the benefits (and often at the expense of others). I will admit that my feelings on this topic run fairly deep, given my ancestry. I can also relate to your point about so-called green energy, and how this affects riperian areas. I think this is a difficult tradeoff, with no real feasible or equitable solution. I have never thought about our economic system being built on unrestricted growth in those terms exactly, but having you state that it makes a lot of sense to me. I feel very out of touch with our economy, but agree that it will be difficult to have a net positive impact, and will be eventually not possible to have a healthy environment if we continue at the rate we are going. Sigh