Draft Water Resources Law - Environment and Public Services Committee - Transcript - 26 July 2004

Event: Water Resources Law Public Hearing Date: 26 July 2004

Chairman Senator Jean Le Maistre

Panel Members: Senator Edward Vibert

Deputy Gerard Baudains

Deputy Philip Rondel

Deputy F.J. Hill

Deputy Robert Duhamel (pm only)

Adviser Dr S Sutton

Witnesses Senator P. Ozouf , President Environment and Public Services

Committee

Mr. C. Newton, Director of Environment

Mr. G. Jackson , Assistant Director - Environmental Protection T. Williams, Environmental Lawyer Mr. G. Le Lay, Jersey Framers Union

Mr. H. Clark, RJA&HS

Mr. H. Baudains, Jersey Landowners Association

Mr. R. De Gruchy, Jersey Landowners Association

Mr. G. Langlois, Water Diviner

Mr. L. de la Haye, Well Driller

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO THE VIBERT SCRUTINY PANEL HEARING DATED 26th JULY 2004

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE

WITNESSES Senator P. Ozouf , President Environment and Public Services Committee

Mr. C. Newton, Director of Environment

Mr. G. Jackson , Assistant Director - Environmental Protection

Mr T. Williams, Environmental Lawyer

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

PART ONE - INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

2. Definition ofgroundwater
3. Discreet source of supply

PART TWO - ADMINISTRATION

4. Redistribution andaugmentation (Article 4(1)(b)
5. Right todraw from a Spring (Article 12(1)(a)and(b))
6. ApplicationofRestrictions
7. Issuing oflicencesonbasisofexistinguse
8. Difficulty inapplyingrestrictions fairly
9. Gauging flow characteristicsofstreams
10. Monitoring and protecting neighbouringwellsandbores
11. Impact ofnewboreholeson existing neighbouringboreholes
12. Derogation ofboreholebyneighbouringcommercialuse
13. Accesstodocumentsandrecords - Data protection implications (Article 34
14. Cost principle - three types charging Article 5(c) and Article 25
15. NochargeforWaterHauliers
16. Costrecovery principle - userpays (Article 5(c))
17. Regulatory activities (Article 7) - Committeein a conflicting role asuserand regulator?
18. Regulation position inUnitedKingdom
19. Regulation position inFrance

20. Issue ofIndependent regulator - possibleenvironmental regulatory body
21. Water regulation inFrance
22. Transferof functions (Schedule4)
23. CostofimplementingtheLaw - meansof scrutiny
    24. Will the principle ofuser-payscontinuetoapply?Does the Committeeaccept that there is a conflict?
    25. Interim arrangements(Schedule4)

PART THREE- PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

26. Licence Exemption for domestic users - under 3 cubic metres per day - Article 12(1) (b).
    27. How would exemption limit for domestic users be monitored?
27. United Kingdom threshold of 20 cubic metres
28. Basis for 3 cubic metres limit in Jersey?
29. 10% of boreholes in the Island to be licensed
30. Comparative figures for water stress
    27. Three cubic metres - a best estimate
31. What constitutes Commercial use?
    27. Domestic consumption level
    28. Power of government to intervene
32. Shared Domestic use of boreholes - addition of Article 12(1)(c) as a result of consultation and inclusion of swimming pools
    27. Possible Different exemption limits
33. Basis for three cubic metres
34. Lack of knowledge of number of boreholes in the Island
35. Three cubic metres an estimated figure
    27. Law is to provide information currently lacking
36. Quality of water under the Law (Article 16(1)(b))
37. Monitoring of abstraction
38. Issue of Licences on basis of research in interim period
    27. Right of appeal - article 17(4),
39. How the estimate for the number of boreholes is reached

47. No requirement for a licence for short term processes - 12(1)(g)
48. Census figures for boreholes
    49. What is the intention with springs?
49. Conditions of licences - Article 18
50. Cost of meters and keeping of records - Article 18(i) & (j) - justified for exceptional events which only occur every 25 years?
51. How does information on abstraction benefit the Island?
52. Springs - clarification
53. Efficient use of water Article 18 (k) & (m)
54. Do same standards of efficiency apply to mains water users as well as boreholes?
55. Does a borehole user get a free' supply of water?

57 Encouraging use of meters for all domestic users

58. Costs ofboreholes - maintenanceandtreatment
    59. Jersey NewWaterworksCompanyasanabstractor - requiredtobe efficient
    60. Suspensionoflicence - Article 22 - whatisanemergency?

PART FOUR DROUGHT MEASURES

61. Applicationtoanyspecifiedpartof the Island [Article 26.3b]
62. Comparison to EmergencyPowers(Jersey)Law1990
63. Applicationtoanyspecifiedclassofpersons - Article 26(3)(d)

PART FIVE ENFORCEMENT

64. Issuing ofwarrants - Article 32

PART SIX OTHER PROVISIONS

65. Appeals
66. Table settingoutforces for theLaw
67. Notification topublicofchanges to the Law - Article 8
68. Concludingremarks - Additionalevidenceon water stress

1. Introduction

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Good morning. For the benefit of the tape, as well as members

appearing in front of the shadow scrutiny panels, I have to read the paper which you've had before you last time. I don't think there's anybody new this time, but

I still have to do it for the record.

"Shadow scrutiny panels have been established by the States to create

Now, first of all, I welcome you to the hearing this morning. We have an apology from

Deputy Duhamel, who is presently in Guernsey. He will be returning later on and could be joining us later. Dr Sutton, you know obviously, is with us as well this morning.

Now, what we are proposing is that we deal with the law specifically today and that we

would propose that it would be taken in parts, so that there is a logical progression through the law. I'd like to start by asking --

DEPUTY HILL: I don't know who the gentleman is to my right, sir.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Sorry.

DEPUTY HILL: I wasn't here last week.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Deputy Hill was not here, so maybe you'd introduce your members, sir. SENATOR OZOUF: I'm grateful, first of all, you allowing me to at least be with one person on

each side. I'm Environment and Public Services President, for the record.

Director of Environment Chris Newton, Terry Williams, our long-standing advisor

to successive Public Services committees on water resources. I don't know

whether you want to add any particular remarks of your particular expertise. TERRY WILLIAMS: I don't think so, no.

SENATOR OZOUF: And the other gentlemen are familiar to you.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Could you just name them?

SENATOR OZOUF: Gerry Jackson and we've got David Hull from the Law Drafting Department.

PART ONE - INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Right. Thank you very much. So, could I ask members of the panel if

they have any questions on Part 1, which is the introductory provisions?

SENATOR VIBERT: I have one, if I may. The explanatory note at the top of Part 1 reads, "The

draft law seeks to provide" and it goes on about the protection bit and then it sort of appears to be a dramatic change in the reason for the law. I wondered if the President could explain why that is.

SENATOR OZOUF: I think -- I know that we ought to get on to the law. I think, if I may say so

respectfully, Senator, we did deal with the whole of the fundamentals of the law in some considerable depth last week. I don't know whether or not, Chairman, you want to suggest that we defer that question, pending perhaps the opportunity for Senator Vibert to have sight and sound of the tape last week. We have dealt quite substantially with some of the background and I, for one, am wanting to get on with the --

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Furthermore, we have suggested that we would actually probably like

to submit written questions, which will absolutely clarify the reasoning behind the law.

SENATOR OZOUF: Okay. That's not because I don't want to answer the question. It's just that we spent -- I'm here another time in order to deal with --

SENATOR VIBERT: (overspeaking) that I'm happy.

SENATOR OZOUF: Yes. Okay.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Okay, thank you. Deputy Rondel?

2. Definition ofgroundwater (article 1) DEPUTY RONDEL: Yes, on Part 1,

"Groundwater means water below the surface of the ground and saturation (inaudible)

and in direct contact with the ground or soil"

That particular one, we did cover it last week. The answer I believe I received was

somewhat different. Could you please give me more detail on that particular -- in the introduction of Part 1 on page 3, please?

TERRY WILLIAMS: Sir, Deputy Rondel is quite right. We did touch upon this last time. But

before I give the substantive answer to the Deputy 's question, may I just explain to the panel the source of this definition? This is derived from relevant EU directives relating to the environment and water in general. It is specifically

adopted by the Groundwater Regulations of 1998 in the UK and, indeed, by other legislation in the UK.

So, it is not a tailor-made definition, in the sense that it's been in any way devised by the law draftsmen in Jersey.

Now, what I said last time you will recall, Deputy , was that in answer to a question by

Deputy Duhamel, was that if this panel were mindful to make any comments vis- à-vis this particular definition, then I think I'm right in saying - I spoke with the instructing team on this - we would be very happy to revisit this definition in the light of your observations and, of course, to advise the promoting committee accordingly. What I would not wish to be drawn on now is any idea that this definition needs in any way to be changed.

Finally, I think, I ought to say that certainly the intention behind the definition was

that it would cover all waters below the ground, whatever the depth may be. That was the clear intention. If that has not been achieved or the panel feel it hasn't been achieved, then I would invite you to comment accordingly and we will revisit it. But I have to say to you that my gut reaction to this - if I can use that phrase - is this is a very well established definition in a lot of environmental legislation. So, I would have to be persuaded that it needed to be changed. I don't think I can usefully (overspeaking).

DEPUTY RONDEL: Okay. Could I just come in on the back of that, if I may, Mr Chairman?

In any dispute in a court of law, could this be broken down to mean exactly what it says or, contrary to your definition just now, all groundwater below the surface?

TERRY WILLIAMS: Clearly, sir, as I'm sure the Deputy appreciates, in any dispute before the

court, it would be for the judge to rule accordingly, having received the evidence from the parties before him. I can't pre-empt what the ruling of the court would

be, of course, but certainly the intention was that it would cover all groundwater, whatever depth it may be.

3. Discreet source of supply

DEPUTY HILL: I would just ask you a question. Could you add to that? Would that include

rainwater collected as a result of falling from the sky, going to one's drain, one's septic tank? There are a number of people in Jersey who still have no other

means of water, apart from rainwater, which they store in their septic tanks - no, not septic tanks - their

tanks, sorry.

TERRY WILLIAMS: No. A septic tank --

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: I think the term was tight tank.

TERRY WILLIAMS: I think in the UK that's called a cesspool. I'm familiar with the term, of course,

in Jersey. No, the answer would be that would not be a (inaudible). That's a slightly different question, if I may say so, to the one that Deputy Rondel put to me.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Would that come within the description of discreet source of supply'? TERRY WILLIAMS: It could well do so, yes, sir, as being one as excluded, yes.

CHRIS NEWTON: Can I just interject? We need to be careful that we're not confusing definitions

here. The groundwater definition is a freestanding definition. Where it talks about discreet sources of supply', that isn't talking about just groundwater. That's defining discreet sources of supply', so it would include -- for instance, an ornamental pond in somebody's garden would be a discreet source of supply, as in having no connection to any other aquifer.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Sorry. Well, it brings me to that question of discreet source of supply,

for the avoidance of doubt. Water that is collected, surface water, in a pond for irrigation purposes, let's say, would fall outside or would be captured by the law?

CHRIS NEWTON: I think to answer that you'd need to think about how that pond or reservoir

came to be full of water. If it came to be full of water by the simple expedient of laying out a polythene cover so the rain collected in it, then that would be a discreet source of supply.

If, however, the pond was created by damming a stream, that would be caught by the

parts of the law that deal with impoundment. If it was created by pumping water out of a stream or out of a borehole into said reservoir, that would also be caught by the law.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: but it could be the runoff from roofs in an area where there's, you know,

quite a lot of surface --

CHRIS NEWTON: Yes, that would be a great idea and would be a discreet source of supply.

DEPUTY RONDEL: So, seawater being turned into fresh water, i.e. desalination, would be a

discreet source of supply?

CHRIS NEWTON: It would not be caught by the ruling on abstraction.

DEPUTY RONDEL: But nor would a discreet source of (inaudible) rainwater, would it, if it fell onto

the greenhouses? So, neither of them would fall under discreet --

CHRIS NEWTON: If it's a simple question of having a collecting system that collects rainwater

and then using the rainwater, it would not be caught by the provisions of this law.

TERRY WILLIAMS: A self-contained unit, sir, containing water, which is not connected with

the resource in general is a discreet water, and therefore is outside the law.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: It's an interesting point because I can give an example, which is a

concrete example - forgive the term - where when a school was constructed - I was a member of the Education Committee at the time - and there was a plan to provide rainwater under the school as a supply, the waterworks company of the day said that they would then not connect the school up with an ordinary supply if they had their own. Now, it's an interesting thought as to how they could actually do that and, presumably, that would bring them into conflict with this kind of provision.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Not if - as I understand it, sir, the explanation you've given - if the unit in

which the water is contained is sealed --

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: A private source?

TERRY WILLIAMS: Yes. Then, that would not be caught by the law, sir.

PART TWO - ADMINISTRATION

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Okay. Are there any other questions on Part 1? We move to Part 2,

administration. Does any member wish to ask any questions?

4. Redistribution andaugmentation (Article 4(1)(b)

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: I have one or two questions I'd like clarified if possible (inaudible)

administration, Article 4(1)(a) Protection of Water Resources in Jersey. Actually, Part (b). Can you

advise me what the committee means by redistribution and augmenting of those resources? My understanding --

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Could you tell us exactly where that is, please? We have to see it. DEPUTY BAUDAINS: Article 4(1)(b), redistributing and augmenting. I'm not sure whether I

understand what they're really seeking to achieve by that. Does it mean if somebody's stream is a bit low, then you're going to have to use your borehole to top it up? I really do want to understand it.

CHRIS NEWTON: There are two expressions there, redistribution' and augmentation'.

Augmentation of a stream flow would be, for instance, setting a residual flow in a stream such that if somebody wanted to put an impoundment across a stream, a barrier, that there would be a requirement to allow a certain amount of water to flow down that stream, irrespective of the person's need upstream. So, it's basically a requirement that allows the protection of the rights of downstream users and the rights of the flora and fauna within that stream. That's the augmentation.

Redistribution basically anticipates that there may be occasions when, if you like, the

current pattern or a future pattern of resource use is seen to be less than optimal. So, it basically allows, through the issuing and variation of licences, for different patterns of resource use to be applied in the future.

So, for instance, it may be seen as appropriate to restrict how much water could be

taken out of a stream flowing into a water company reservoir, so as to ensure that the water company reservoir is full and we don't suffer through droughts and a shortage of rainfall in the summer.

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: Basically, what you're -- putting it very simply, you're talking about

balancing the resources.

CHRIS NEWTON: Between different users, yes.

5. Right todraw from a Spring (Article 12(1)(a)and(b))

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: When we come to it, perhaps - I'm trying to remember where it is -

there's also a question which we raised last time, which was to do with where a

spring actually rises, where the rights of the individual are to draw from that spring. And what is being

suggested here is that those rights would be changed.

CHRIS NEWTON: Not so much changed. It's the power to intervene if necessary.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: It's that at the moment that power does not exist, is what is being told to

us.

CHRIS NEWTON: That's right.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: by the legal advice, and therefore that power to draw water, ability to

draw water, would be potentially interfered with.

CHRIS NEWTON: Potentially, yes.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Above the threshold limit, sir, as you appreciate, of three cubic metres a day. SENATOR LE MAISTRE: I was not aware - but this is interesting - that the right to draw from a

stream which was the result of a spring would be limited in the same way as drawing from a well would be limited. Maybe you could tell us where that is contained in the law.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Yes, in Article 12, sir.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Right. And that would -- sorry, I had interpreted that as being from a

well or borehole, but it actually captures also the -- it's quite important, isn't it? TERRY WILLIAMS: The distinction, if I can assist the panel, sir, is that in 12(1)(a), there is an

exemption for surface water abstraction up to three cubic metres a day. And

groundwater is covered by 12(1)(b). The only difference between (a) and (b) is

that (b) requires registration with the committee and the rationale behind that,

sir, as I understand it, is that the groundwater is sensitive in Jersey and so it is

considered as a policy to be appropriate.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: It can perhaps raise the issue of the rights of individuals, human rights, to access the water. I think that is yet to be determined.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Of course, sir. Of course. As you will recall, sir, I was here. I was privileged

to hear the Solicitor General give the advice. She answered a question which you put to her, that the vetting procedure would take its course.

6. ApplicationofRestrictions

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: Still on the generality of 4(1)(b), (b) is on (inaudible) and Mr Newton I think

has provided me with answers to the next question I had, which was I wondered if, when there are restrictions or if there are restrictions, whether that would apply generally or different restrictions would apply to different types of use or different class of people. Clearly, that would, in order to create the redistribution that you spoke about a moment ago.

My concern that flows from that is how is that actually going to be calculated? Who is

going to decide and on what information basis?

7. Issuing oflicencesonbasisofexistinguse

CHRIS NEWTON: I think you'll understand that one of the issues that we've grappled with over

these sessions is the relative scarcity of high quality information on the available water resource. The intention, clearly, is to improve upon that, partly through requirements of the law such as the registration of boreholes and the allocation of licences.

The way it's anticipated the law would work is that in the initial phase, licences

will be issued predominantly on the basis of existing use. So, if somebody demonstrates an existing use of a particular source at a particular quantity, then that is the initial licence that they will get. What we will be able --

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: For a five-year period, yes?

CHRIS NEWTON: For the interim period. What we will be doing over that period, as well as

issuing them with a licence for that quantity, is carrying out a review of the impact of those uses and abstractions on the source of supply.

So, if over that period it becomes clear that there are problems within that

catchment area - if I can use that expression - then you would look at the end of the interim period to put in place a more robust system of resource distribution, such that all the users were taken account of. That would be done through the expert hydrological advice we will have, as and when we recruit the person who will be necessary to administer the law, as is mentioned elsewhere in the report.

8. Difficulty inapplyingrestrictions fairly

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: If I may follow on from that, it did occur to me that it's an almost impossible

task to do fairly because if a stream is running low, exactly how much do you --

obviously, restricting the flow is going to maybe affect a farmer further up who

can no longer irrigate his field or something. Deciding the exact amount is not

going to be an easy matter and, possibly with boreholes, would be even more

difficult. I'm just concerned that, could we have some information on this. CHRIS NEWTON: I would accept it's not easy. However, it's a subject that's been the -- has

been sort of dealt with in practice for the last 40 years in the UK, since the

introduction of the Water Resources Law in 1963 and it's a subject on which

there's a fair bit of expertise available.

Things like setting minimum flows in streams are subject to fairly well established

criteria, in that you would look at, for instance, the lowest summer flow over a period of years and you would set a limit such that that was maintained, for instance.

9. Gauging flow characteristicsofstreams

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Would that entail actually taking measurements of all the streams in the

island over the 12-month period? How would that be achieved?

CHRIS NEWTON: Well, it would be important to know what the flow characteristics of the stream

were like, yes.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: So, you wouldn't be able to do that without actually monitoring the

streams, presumably, on full 12-month cycle.

CHRIS NEWTON: The normal approach is to do what would be technically called the gauging of

those systems.

10. Monitoring and protecting neighbouringwellsandbores

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Can I just pick up on the point that Deputy Baudains asked in terms of

understanding the resource implications and so on?

As I understand it, there are examples in the island of neighbouring wells having

different depths to achieve the same rate of supply. How would that be dealt with in terms of the

regulation and protection? Clearly, they don't have to be very far apart. I know of some which are only about 50 metres apart, and yet go to very different depths, one at 110 feet, for example, the other one at 158 feet.

CHRIS NEWTON: I guess the simple presumption of the law is, firstly, supplies that are drawing

less than three cubic metres a day will not be affected. They're not caught by the law at all.

If they're drawing more than three cubic metres per day, then the first test would be: is

that causing anybody any problems in that neighbourhood? So if, for instance, there are six neighbouring boreholes and they're all drawing more than three cubic metres a day and everybody's happy with the situation, nobody feels they're being hard done to, the water table isn't being depleted, then there would be no reason to intervene and change the licence conditions.

Where we might have a problem is if you've got six people who were in balance and

then a seventh person has arrived, sunk an even bigger shaft, put an even bigger pump in. And it's pulled down the water table such that all his neighbours can't get hold of the water anymore, in which case you would want to intervene and set a licence condition such that the take of water was equitably distributed amongst all the users in that vicinity and not just taken by one major user.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Thank you. Your answers implies that the water table is set for any

given area and it would be likely to affect all users in that area to the same extent. Do you envisage the possibility where a deeper borehole may have no water and a shallower borehole does have water?

CHRIS NEWTON: It's possible for all sorts of reasons, technical reasons to do with the nature of

the borehole itself, whether the borehole is silted up, whether the pump is efficient, etc, etc. I mean it's not just a simple matter of levels and, of course, the water table will rise and fall with the annual rainfall that's experienced as well.

11. Impact ofnewboreholeson existing neighbouringboreholes

SENATOR VIBERT: On the example that you raised about the seventh borehole, as an example,

are you aware of this ever happening in Jersey? Have any examples ever been reported to the committee or to anyone of anybody ever doing that and it having that effect?

CHRIS NEWTON: I've heard of it anecdotally but my personal presence in Jersey hasn't been

long enough to have picked up specific examples.

SENATOR VIBERT: Is there any record of it at all in the department?

CHRIS NEWTON: Can we take advice? Gerry Jackson will deal with that.

GERRY JACKSON: There is some anecdotal evidence that boreholes have dried, but I can't

recall a specific incident of a borehole being reported to Water Resources as a

complaint. There have been anecdotal evidence, when we've spoken to people. SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Has there been any discussion with those responsible for drilling wells

on this particular issue?

GERRY JACKSON: We have spoken to the well drillers, but we've found it quite difficult to get

their records. They're reticent to give records so, again, the law would allow us to get that information, if necessary.

Just one other point, if I could, Mr Chairman. It is possible we've also come across

situations where there are shallow bores you can draw water from and the deeper bores that are quite close don't. There are -- I'm not a hydrologist but I understand there are perch aquifers in Jersey, so there are different levels of water that can be drawn.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Okay. Thank you. That answers the question. Are there any other

questions?

12. Derogation ofboreholebyneighbouringcommercialuse

DEPUTY HILL: Maybe I could ask Mr Jackson to come back just on that aspect of our seventh

borehole. It might well have come trough a commercial use. You have an area where people are living. I don't think we're getting quite so much now, but it could have been. But it's anecdotal whereby the greenhouses may bore a hole where they use it for commercial use and that may well take -- would that be some part of the anecdotal evidence you've had? Would that have been an

occasion when that might have arisen? I'm trying to think where it could have happened.

GERRY JACKSON: I think one example we had was -- I can't remember exactly which hotel but I

think it was a commercial hotel in St Brelades Bay and the house next door had been derogated. We had some anecdotal evidence of that.

DEPUTY HILL: That was really the only occasion it would have occurred. Under normal

circumstances, when people were in their own home, you'd go to a certain depth because that is the sort of depth of the area. It would normally be through commercial?

GERRY JACKSON: Yes, sir.

13. Accesstodocumentsandrecords - Data protection implications (Article 34

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: Could I just come in there for clarification from what Mr Jackson said? The

law would allow access to the well driller's records and that, so people could get possibly a fuller understanding. More knowledge, clearly, is better than less knowledge. I am wondering how data protection would come into that. Is it an obstacle?

SENATOR OZOUF: If I may answer, I was the rapporteur for the new Data Protection Bill, so I

know data protection fairly well.

I'm sure that the microphone can pick me up from where that is. If there is a volume

there, I'm quite clear to this -- is that satisfactory? You don't have to move it? Right, okay. That's good. I don't want to be interrupted every time.

The Data Protection Law requires the data to be collected and for you to declare the

reason why you are actually going to be giving -- the person asking for the data needs to know exactly what purpose you're doing it. So, as far as the law is going to be enacted going forward, then obviously data which is collected under this new law is going to be fully data protection compliant. I am not clear about information that would be information that is collected by borehole drillers today and going backwards.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Can I amplify the answer given by the President, sir? I am actually familiar

with the Data Protection Law in Jersey because when we drafted the Drainage Law, I had to look at it.

I can say confidently to the panel that the Data Protection Law in Jersey, as it does in

the UK, provides an exemption in respect of where there are statutory requirements. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but if I invite the panel to look at Article 34 of this law, you will see in there that there is specific provision to enable the committee to obtain documentation and information from - and I would say inter alia - well drillers.

So, to summarise and answer Deputy Baudains' question fairly and squarely, because this law provides specifically for the collection of data, it falls within the

exception to the rule in the Data Protection Law. So I don't see a problem, sir. DEPUTY RONDEL: Can I come in on that? We're talking about historical information also.

You're confirming that also, with this 34?

TERRY WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEPUTY RONDEL: I'm talking historical, something that might go back 30 or 40 years, not just

yesterday.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Yes. May I answer that again fairly and squarely because I'm very anxious to

answer these questions firmly?

Article 34 bites in relation to documentation and information which is in the possession

of the person at the time when it is requested. So, it doesn't matter how old the information is if you've still got it. But what you can't, of course, be required to do is to dig out information that has been destroyed because that would be quite impossible. It only relates to information in your possession at the time when the notice is served. Does that answer your question?

DEPUTY RONDEL: Yes, thank you very much.

14. Cost principle - three typescharging Article 5(c)and Article 25

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: May I ask, under Part 2(5) Operating Considerations, under (c), there is

the mention of the cost principle by which,

"The costs are managed of regulating the abstraction and impounding water are borne

by the persons who abstract or impound it"

Would this actually include those who would be registered for -- is it the intention for

those to include those who are registered for domestic purposes, in other words, under the three cubic

metres per day?

TERRY WILLIAMS: No, sir. I think, to answer your question, I would need to invite the panel to

look at Article 25. Article 25, as you can see, sir, creates three categories of charges, which the committee can impose by order.

The first category is A and that is the cost of processing an application. It's not forced to

do this, but it will have the power to do so. Category B is in respect of those who hold a licence. It could be, for example, an annual charge for having a licence. And the third category, which is coming to the answer to your question, sir, is that you will see that C relates to one category only in relation to Article 12 and that is the issuing of consents. What, in effect, 25(1)(c) is relating to, sir, is 12(1)(g). I'm sorry to throw these numbers at you.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: No, no. I think that's very helpful.

TERRY WILLIAMS: Thank you.

15. NochargeforWaterHauliers

DEPUTY RONDEL: On that, Chair, if I might, where a haulier is removing large quantities of water

to take to a household, i.e. to fill up a storage tank at time of drought or after two or three weeks from the rainwater systems, how is that covered under your charges?

TERRY WILLIAMS: There is no provision for charging in those circumstances. The charges

relate, sir, Deputy Rondel, only to those who apply for a licence, those who hold a licence or those who obtain a test pumping consent under 12(1)(g). There is no provision to charge anyone else.

DEPUTY RONDEL: So, a haulier - that's his business, going round filling up rainwater systems at

certain times of the year - who will be removing more than three cubic metres a day and delivering then, shall we say, several thousand gallons a time to a particular property, the law will not apply to them?

CHRIS NEWTON: Sorry, you're giving me two separate -- let's just be clear. Where is he picking

this water up from?

DEPUTY RONDEL: Through the water board(?), I presume, or -- yes, it would have to be a good

portable supply, so --

DEPUTY BAUDAINS: As far as I'm aware, the water hauliers use waterworks company water,

which I presume is metered and (inaudible).

CHRIS NEWTON: This deals with water in the wild, if you like. This doesn't deal with water that's

already in water company ownership and in their pipes. If they get it out of a tap, to put it simply, then they're not caught by the law.

SENATOR OZOUF: Okay. Deputy Rondel, I think you were trying to identify whether or not the

function of the delivery would attract a charge, as opposed to where he got it from.

DEPUTY RONDEL: Both, actually.

SENATOR OZOUF: Right, okay. So, we're clear on the answer?

TERRY WILLIAMS: I could assist Deputy Rondel by referring to Article 3(3), which specifically

excludes water in mains or pipes. Thank you.

16. Costrecovery principle - user pays (Article 5(c))

SENATOR VIBERT: Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a question on Article 5, which is the cost

principle. According to Article 5, it says that people who abstract or impound water will be responsible for the costs of the regulation and management of the activities.

Does that mean that if it is discovered that the cost and management of that rises, then

the amount is going to be split between the number of people who are actually drawing the water under the law? In other words, is it a user pay principle, where whatever happens to the cost - over which the user has no control - they will continue to pay higher prices as the costs rise? In other words, you wish it to be a self-funding principle?

CHRIS NEWTON: That's essentially right. It's a cost recovery principle. The costs of running the

system are passed on to those people within the system, but that would be subject to the normal strictures of the committee process, which would ensure that costs are kept to the minimum required to administer the law.

17 Regulatory activities (Article 7) - Committee in a conflicting role as user and regulator?

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: May I ask, under 7, we have -- I think it's probably the first occasion, I

may be incorrect there, which refers to the regulatory activities of the committee. CHRIS NEWTON: Sorry, I've lost track.

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: Article 7, under 1. It's really probably a political question, but is the

committee comfortable in being a user as well as a regulator, in that one has been seeking to separate activities which could be in conflict? So, really, it's a question of is the committee comfortable in being - because it's the first time it comes, as far I've picked it up - the regulator as well as the user?

SENATOR OZOUF: The committee is conflicted in a number of respects. When I appear before

you dealing with the subject of waste management, I'm conflicted there on the one side with the operating side of the Public Services Department in running an incinerator. On the other side, we've got the Environmental Department.

We deal with conflict by having a clear set of responsibilities for the different

departments within the committee's responsibility and also within the

reorganisation of the committee's management structure, as you may have

been made aware of things recently. We are putting in place a separate

reporting line for the Director of the Environment through straight to the

committee, as opposed to other areas of the operational side of the committee. So, I'm not sure. Obviously, the committee's together for certainly the next 18 months

and we're dealing with that on a short-term basis in a variety of ways, one of

which I've just given to you. In the longer term, I'm not sure. I can't think of any

particular conflicts that would continue to be in place, as far as water resources

are concerned, but that same Chinese wall principle will be applied.

18. Regulation position inUnitedKingdom

SENATOR LE MAISTRE: May I ask whether we have a similar situation applying in the United

Kingdom, whether is the regulator separate in terms of this law in the UK or is the regulator also a user?

TERRY WILLIAMS: Well, I'm happy to deal with this question, sir, because like Mr Newton I'm

formerly with the regulator in the UK.

The position, sir, in the UK was that from 1974 through to 1989, the regulatory and

operational role were carried out by the same body. They were called water authorities, using the