Examining First Nations’ approach to protecting water resources using a multi-barrier approach to safe drinking water in Southern Ontario, Canada

Abstract

This paper uses a multi-barrier approach (MBA) to examine issues and opportunities with water resource protection in three First Nations communities in Southern Ontario (Mississauga of the New Credit First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Six Nations of the Grand River). The cross-case analysis highlights the relevance of attitudes toward water and authority, cultural practices, current legislative and regulative arrangements, and quality of relationships for improving water management and governance. Employing a perspective that captures cultural, social, economic and political contexts may enhance the ability to address persistent water challenges experienced by First Nations.

Ce papier utilise une approche multi-barrière (AMB) pour examiner des problématiques et des opportunités concernant la protection des ressources en eau dans trois communautés Première Nation localiser dans le sud de l’Ontario (Nation Mississauga de la New Credit, Nation Oneida de la Thames, et Six Nations de la Rivière Grande). Une analyse de cas croisée démontre l’importance d’examiner et de comprendre les multiples attitudes concernant l’eau et l’autorité, les pratiques culturelles, les dispositions législatives et réglementaires présentement en vigueur, et la qualité des relations présente pour améliorer la gestion et gouvernance de l’eau. Employant une perspective qui capture les contextes culturels, sociaux, économiques et politiques peuvent améliorer la capacité des Première Nations pour adresser des défis persistants concernant l’eau.

Introduction

Across Canada, a multi-barrier approach (MBA) is being utilized to address concerns about water safety. After the Walkerton, Ontario crisis, where seven people died due to treatment mismanagement and source water contamination, Justice O’Connor recommended the provincial government amend legislation to employ an MBA to safe drinking water for all citizens of Ontario, including First Nations. Recognizing the severity of water issues confronting First Nations, O’Connor argued that despite the constitutionally enshrined federal responsibilities for water on First Nations reserves, provincial legislation should enable First Nations to join in the watershed planning process, specifically in planning and implementing source-water protection (one of the multiple barriers protecting Ontario’s drinking water). The province responded by developing the Clean Water Act (2006) to improve the protection and safety of water in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of the Environment [OMOE] 2004); nevertheless, water issues continue to be a prominent concern for First Nations.

First Nations confront many issues related to water quality and access. As of January 2015, 136 Drinking Water Advisories were in effect in 91 First Nations communities across Canada, excluding British Columbia, some of which are long-term and have been in place for multiple years (Health Canada 2015). Reports issued by governments and non-government organizations alike reflect the severity of water issues confronting First Nations and also indicate that inadequate access to water is a paramount concern (e.g. access to safe drinking water; Government of Canada 2005; Christensen 2006; Harden and Levalliant 2008; Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources [CIER] 2009; Christensen et al. 2010; Assembly of First Nations [AFN] 2011). Inadequate access is often an issue of equity. For example, lack of meaningful engagement limits how the values and interests of First Nations Peoples are incorporated into water management. Meaningful engagement is central to asserting the inherent rights of First Nations to use and control water resources (Kahn et al. 2001; Safe Drinking Water Foundation 2009). Why these water issues persist across First Nations communities varies depending on social, political, cultural and environmental contexts (Borrows 1997; Basdeo and Bharadwaj 2013).

Policy makers and researchers have recognized the value of an MBA to address water concerns and challenges confronting First Nations, and its application within reserve contexts. However, debate continues over how provincial legislation applies on First Nations reserves (O’Connor 2002). Provincial law may apply on reserves through general application if it does not specifically relate to First Nations aspects of the land and infringe on the rights of First Nations. If it does, provincial law may apply by virtue of the Indian Act, s. 88 (1985) (Government of Canada 2001; Swain et al. 2006b). However, the Chiefs of Ontario, in O’Connor (2002) and Swain et al. (2006a, 2006b), argue that protecting water through land management practice potentially infringes upon federal jurisdiction and the rights of First Nations, thus affecting the inability to self-govern. Further, in Ontario source-water protection legislation focuses strictly on municipal water supplies, leaving First Nations non-municipal or community systems (e.g. residential wells, streams, cisterns) largely unprotected. In examining the implications of these arrangements, Walters et al. (2012) compared the capacity of First Nations and non-First Nations communities in Ontario to implement an MBA. They identify that implementing an MBA within the current water management and governance regime remains a challenge for First Nations. They argue that current federal and provincial strategies (predominantly financial and technical investments) needed to implement the MBA do not address existing gaps in political leadership and participation in decision-making. Walters et al.’s (2012) study aligns with Finn’s (2010) commentary that current conceptualizations of the MBA fail to meet the needs of First Nations. Finn’s (2010) study evaluated how an MBA, according to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (CCME 2002), was applied in northern Ontario First Nations communities. He found that current conceptualizations of an MBA (i.e. CCME) employ predominantly technical strategies to protect water resources, and fail to support local and traditional knowledge, beliefs and perspectives within the current water management and governance regime.

As these studies highlight, current approaches to implement and conceptualize multiple barriers to protecting water resources focus on financial and technical aspects that are unable to address the full extent of challenges confronting First Nations. Questions remain over how to improve strategies that support local and traditional knowledge, participation and leadership. Authors such as McGregor (2012) argue that answers can be found through the practice and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. First Nations’ perspectives on their responsibility to protect water are embedded in their world views and relationships with water that are in turn based on respect and reciprocating responsibility (Ransom 1995; Kahn et al. 2001; McGregor and Whitaker 2001). These attitudes and values are informed by the natural laws that are carried forward through oral traditions and spiritual beliefs, and underpin First Nations responsibility to protect water resources (McGregor and Whitaker 2001; Walkem 2006). The protection of water resources on-reserve may be informed by both the current water management regime and local or traditional approaches. Improving our understanding of this intersection of current practices for protecting water resources on-reserve will shed light on helpful strategies that go beyond financial and technical investments to meet the needs of First Nations.

This paper explores current approaches to protecting water resources in three First Nations case site communities using the MBA. Two main objectives guide this research: (1) to examine how the MBA is expressed in three First Nations case site communities, highlighting prominent challenges for protecting water resources on-reserve; and (2) to identify opportunities to address water challenges and improve prospects for more effective water governance on First Nations reserves.

MBA and context

The MBA is an integrated system of procedures, processes and tools that collectively prevent or reduce the contamination of drinking water from source to tap in order to reduce risk to public health (CCME 2002). Commonly used barriers put in place to prevent water contamination are source-water protection, protection of the distribution system and drinking water treatment (CCME 2002). In Canada, an MBA to protecting drinking water has been advocated through the CCME as a broad mandate to facilitate policy development, standard-setting and support for provincial and municipal actions.

Plummer et al. (2010) synthesize the MBA into five key elements, namely protection of sensitive source areas, treatment, distribution, monitoring and responding to adverse conditions to examine the extent to which municipalities develop new environmental policy in response to crisis in Ontario (Table 1). It should be noted that in First Nations contexts, protecting water resources may extend beyond drinking water to other uses such as medicinal and ecological. This paper uses these five elements along with corresponding key concerns (also outlined in Table 1) as a framework to examine how the MBA is expressed in each case site community. The five-element framework had been successfully utilized to investigate water policy in Ontario, and specifically to investigate how new policies and processes interact when introduced into pre-existing policy arenas (Plummer et al. 2010). In a similar way, this research uses the elements as a guide to collect and synthesize prominent challenges for protecting water resources confronting First Nations in Ontario.

Table 1. Key elements and concerns of the multi-barrier approach (MBA) to protect drinking water.

Elements	Description	Key concerns
Protecting of sensitive source areas	Protection of sensitive recharge and discharge areas to assure the quality and the quantity of water availability in its broadest sense to fulfill the needs of society and ecosystems. Long-term planning for sustainable water availability of instream flows, surface water and groundwater requires the establishment of a policy relationship between land-use planning and water protection. This is an essential principle designed to protect and/or enhance water resources from potentially harmful development within the initial area of water supply (OMOE 2004a, 8; Brandes et al. 2005, 57; de Loë et al. 2005, 135; Ivey et al. 2006, 193).	• Delineation of sensitive areas • Initiatives focused on ground- and surface-water protection • Protection of sensitive lands (relating to agricultural, commercial, industrial and other land uses and activities) • Protection of water from impacts of historical, existing and future land use
Treatment	Treatment of water to ensure the health of the resource for human consumption, as well as treatment for potentially hazardous substances that may result in water contamination and the reclamation of water through recycling. Multiple treatment mechanisms are desirable (OMOE 2004a, 8; Brandes et al. 2005, 13, 84).	• Identification of contaminant sources from industrial, commercial, agricultural and other activities • Availability of options before discharge is permitted such as on-site recycling,product reuse and treatment to remove or reduce hazards • The use of biological, chemical and physical treatment of water to lower the risk of contamination • Sufficient funding to operate and maintain facilities
Distribution and storage systems	Covers the components of water cycling through the storage and distribution system. The water distribution network is a key aspect of protection; it is also the most expensive component of a water supply system and is continuously subject to environmental and operational stresses, which cause deterioration. The water storage component refers to both built and natural storage approaches. This broad barrier encompasses water cycle and storage management that prevents the intrusion of contaminants (Kleiner et al. 2001, 15; Pollution Probe 2001, 4; OMOE 2004a, 8; Brandes et al. 2005, 70).	• Safety, reliability, quality and efficiency of water supply • Improvement of water supply systems • Management of the water cycle and storage throughout the distribution system • Programs for management of existing and abandoned private wells (public and private)
Monitoring and distribution, surface and groundwater	Monitoring of surface and groundwater quality and quantity involves the detection of contaminants that exist in concentrations beyond acceptable limits and return systems to normal operation. Monitoring is an essential process that provides continued protection and management (OMOE 2003, 8; de Loë et al. 2005, 132).	• Inspection, monitoring and enforcement for existing private wells and septic systems • Monitoring of source water and groundwater withdrawals and quality • Policy commitment to continuous improvement through implementation based on assessment, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and follow-up modifications
Responding to adverse conditions	Responses to adverse conditions are in place for all elements of the MBA. This element is designed to help prevent adverse health impacts, and prevent further water degradation, by responding to adverse conditions that may cause any barrier(s) to fail (OMOE 2004, xvi, 8; de Loë et al. 2005, 134).	• Policy addressing procedures for emergency response to spills and other threats • Identification of significant risks that have the potential to create adverse impacts; prescribed actions to mitigate the risks

Note:

Adapted from Plummer et al. (2010).

Methodology

A multiple case study methodology as outlined by Yin (2009) is utilized to explore specific contemporary issues like those surrounding water and its protection through the lived experiences in the study sites. A cross-case comparison is conducted between three First Nations case study sites in Southern Ontario (i.e. Six Nations of the Grand River, Oneida Nation of the Thames and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation; see Figure 1 for their location in Southern Ontario). Deliberately selected, each community represents diverse water arrangements (e.g. drinking and sanitary water infrastructure, current pressures on source waters within each reserve and process for responding to drinking water issues). Building on previously conducted research (Plummer et al. 2013), this study is part of a collaborative partnership with three First Nations communities, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations (New Credit), Oneida Nations of the Thames (Oneida) and Six Nations of the Grand River (Six Nations). Table 2 summarizes for each case study the key arrangements including source water and sanitary services, infrastructure, responsibilities and financing. The following case site descriptions draw from previous works by S. Smith (2009), Cave et al. (2013) and Plummer et al. (2013).

Figure 1. Case study communities in southern Ontario.

Table 2. Summary of drinking water and sanitary services for each case study.

Case study community	Source water and sanitary disposal	Access to water and sanitary services	Key water and sanitation infrastructure	Responsibility for maintaining and operating infrastructure	Primary source of financing
Mississauga of the New Credit^a	• Surface water from Lake Erie	• 226 total residential, public, commercial and industrial units within the community • 141 residential units access communal system • 20 (approx.) public/commercial units access communal system	• Drinking water treatment facility operated off-reserve	• Owned by City of Nanticoke, operated by Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA)	• City of Nanticoke
			• On-reserve water pipeline (from treatment facility)	• Maintained and operated by New Credit	• Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)New Credit^*
	• Groundwater	• 70 residential units access wells or cisterns for drinking water (filled with surface water from Lake Erie)	• Residential wells (detraining and under-maintained)	• Residential home owner	• Residential home owner
	• Sanitary disposal to Boston Creek	• 69 residential units access communal sanitation • 13 commercial/industrial units have access to sanitation • 144 residential and commercial units access septic pumping services	• Single-cell lagoon for water treatment and sand filter	• Maintained and operated by New Credit	• AANDC
Oneida Nation of the Thames^b	• Groundwater under the influence of surface water (GUDI)	• 459 total residential units, total units of commercial and industrial is unavailable • 459 residential units access communal water service	• Treatment plant facility	• Maintained and operated by Oneida	• AANDC
			• Water tower and pipe line
	• Groundwater	• 5–6 residential units access residential wells*	• Residential wells and cisterns (degrading and under-maintained)*	• Residential homeowner	• Residential home owner
	• Sanitary discharged to small creek	• 9 residential units access communal sanitation system • 439 residential units use septic tanks • 11 residential units access other services	• Sequencing batch reactor wastewater treatment system (as of 2001 not functioning; SFNS 2001)	• Maintained and operated by Oneida	• AANDC
Six Nations of the Grand River^c	• Surface water from the Grand River	• Total of 2808 residential units, total units of commercial and industrial is unavailable • 415 residential units have access to surface water • 99 commercial units have access to surface water	• Treatment plant facility at capacity (new plant expected to be completed by end of 2013)	• maintained and operated by Six Nations	• AANDC
			• Truck fill station • Water tower • Pipeline
		• 315 residential units are not connected to running water services in 2010 (Wong 2010)
		• 2200 residential, commercial and public units access truck fill station (Pecoskie 2010)	• Residential cisterns	• Residential homeowner	• Residential home owner
	• Groundwater	• Unreported how many residential and commercial units access residential wells	• Residential wells (detraining and under-maintained)	• Residential homeowner	• Residential home owner
	• Sanitary discharged to the Grand River	• 304 residential units access communal system • 99 commercial units access communal system • 2058 residential and commercial units access septic services	• 5-cell sewage lagoons for water treatment • Peat land treatment system	• Maintained and operated by Six Nations	• AANDC
		• 312 residential units have no sewage system

^* Information from interviews.

^a MOTNC (2008).

^b SFNS (2001).

^c SNOTGR (2010)

Note: It is possible that residential, public, commercial and industrial units may access more than one water source.

Six Nations of the Grand River

Six Nations of the Grand River is located south of the City of Brantford (downstream) with an on-reserve population of approximately 13,000 people (Six Nations of the Grand River [SNOTGR] 2010). Six Nations receives water from two main sources within the Grand River watershed: surface water from the Grand River which is treated on-reserve at a new treatment plant facility (opened in November 2013 after data was collected for this research) and distributed to some community members by pipe or water truck, and residential wells used to capture groundwater (SNOTGR 2010). Additionally, many residents purchase bottled water. Current pressures on water include source-water contamination (via poor residential wells, disposal facilities, septic systems and agricultural sources; (Burnett 2005; SNOTGR 2007).

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation is also located south of Brantford and borders the west side of Six Nations. It has an on-reserve population of approximately 820 people (Mississaugas of the New Credit [MOTNC] 2008). New Credit receives surface water piped from nearby Lake Erie. The water is treated off-reserve at the Nanticoke treatment facility and distributed to some community members by pipeline or water truck. A small proportion of community members receive water captured from deteriorated wells (MOTNC 2008). Some residents purchase bottled water for drinking (MOTNC 2008). New Credit continues to face water-related pressures from contamination of both groundwater and surface water from agricultural activities, dumping, septic systems and industrial activities (i.e. the Tom Howe Landfill and a nearby gypsum plant). The landfill is located adjacent to New Credit and threatens residential well-water quality within the community. The landfill is the 22nd largest in Ontario (by footprint, 26.4 ha) and is scheduled to close in October 2015 (Ontario 2015).

Oneida Nation of the Thames

Oneida Nation of the Thames is located southwest of London (downstream) and has an on-reserve population of approximately 2000 people (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada [AANDC] 2010). Oneida receives water primarily from an aquifer fed by the Thames River. Water is treated on-reserve and distributed to all residents. Many residents purchase bottled water for drinking. Oneida has concerns over water contamination from the Green Lane Landfill located adjacent to the community. The landfill is the eighth largest (by footprint, 71.2 ha) in Ontario (Ontario 2015). Upstream sewage treatment facilities as well as general river-water quantity issues are also a concern. Additionally, Cave et al. (2013) identify issues associated with mistrust in leadership and the quality of water provided by the drinking water treatment facility.

Multiple methods were used to explore the water challenges confronting the three case site communities according to the MBA, including archival data gathering, secondary data gathering, semi-structured interviews and direct observation. Multiple methods were used to identify and evaluate themes or perspectives based on a combination of triangulation between data sources, frequency at which ideas arose and prevalence of an idea across the case sites (Stake 1995; Creswell 2003; Lewis-Beck et al. 2004). Data collection was conducted between 2010 and 2014. A summary of data sources is presented in Table 3. Primary data sources included 30 semi-structured interviews (approx. 10 within each case site) conducted face to face with community members in locations convenient to each participant (e.g. home, coffee shop, office). An interview guide was developed based on the key elements described in Table 1 to capture the water-related challenges confronting First Nations.

Table 3. Data sources.

Data sources(approx. dates conducted or accessed)	Case sites (# number of individuals interviewed)
	Oneida Nation of the Thames	Mississauga of the New Credit	Six Nations of the Grand River
Key informant interviews (2012–2013)	Elected Council (4), Traditional Council (3), Health (1), Technical specialist (4), Elder (3)	Elected Council (4), Health (2), Technical Specialist (2), Elder (2), other (2)	Elected Council (4), Technical specialist (3), Elder (2), other (1)
Secondary and archival data (2012–2014)	Websites (e.g. AANDC, Oneida, Stats Canada, Health Canada, Conservation Authority), community documents (e.g. engineering reports, emergency response plan), government reports (e.g. assessments, inquiries, source protection committee meeting minutes)	Websites (e.g. AANDC, Oneida, Stats Canada, Health Canada, Conservation Authority), community documents (e.g. engineering reports, emergency response plan, Chief and Council meeting minutes, Comprehensive Community Plan), government reports (e.g. assessments, inquiries, source protection committee meeting minutes) historical texts (e.g. D.B. Smith 1987)	Websites (e.g. AANDC, Oneida, Stats Canada, Health Canada, Conservation Authority), community documents (e.g. engineering reports, emergency response plan, Chief and Council meeting minutes, Community Plan), government reports (e.g. assessments, inquiries, source protection committee meeting minutes), historical texts (e.g. Johnson 1881)
Direct observation (2009–2014)	Research notes	Research notes	Research notes

Note:

Some individuals represented more than one role e.g., Elder and Traditional Council.

Interviews were conducted between 2012 and 2013 with key informants who are (1) members of the partnering First Nation communities, and (2) work in areas related to or are knowledgeable about water. Participants included council members, elders, treatment plant operators and health representatives. Participants were selected based on their knowledge and experiences surrounding water and recruited based on guidance provided with the assistance of the community partner, and snowball sampling. Participants were between the approximate ages of 30 and 75. Interviews were conducted by two university researchers. Training and pilot interviews were conducted with both interviewers to assure congruency throughout the interview process.

Each interview was transcribed and provided to the participants for member checks. Data were analyzed by the first author using a qualitative content analysis approach (Graneheim and Lundman 2004) which incorporated both deductive and inductive approaches to coding as outlined by Boyatzis (1998), Crabtree and Miller (1999) and Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2008). The analysis process started with deductive coding utilizing the MBA elements (Table 1) as categories, where information related to water challenges was organized according to these pre-determined categories. Inductive coding was then used to uncover themes related to water challenges and opportunities. The qualitative research software QSR NVivo 10™ was used to organize data categories and identify themes.

Archival and secondary data sources included council meeting minutes (publicly available; 142 documents), source protection committee meeting minutes (95 documents), personal documents provided by community partners, websites, reports, community documents and historical texts. Archival and secondary data sources were selected based on the recommendation of research partners and participants, and through online searches based on relevance to the research.

Secondary and archival data sources were searched using text query functions in QSR NVivo 10™ (e.g. water, watershed, treatment, river, stream, lake, groundwater, well, contaminate, monitoring, landfill, gallery). Search terms were selected based on key ideas and topics uncovered through research activities. The search results were then deductively coded according to MBA principles (Table 1) and used to triangulate with other data sources.

Direct observation was also an important method for data collection. Over the time period from 2010 to 2014, the authors worked within the communities on water-related projects (Cave et al. 2013; Plummer et al. 2013). Observations from these experiences and while conducting research activities and attending workshops were recorded in a journal. The information gained through observations (e.g. behaviour, environmental conditions) provided additional insights into water challenges and their evolution over time, and was used in conjunction with other data sources to triangulate findings (Yin 2009). Information collected was organized using QSR NVivo 10™.

Ethical clearance to conduct this research was provided through Brock University’s Research Ethics Board and Wilfrid Laurier University’s Research Ethics Board, as well as through the Elected Chief and Council in each case site community. Interested potential participants were verbally read an invitation to participate outlining the purpose of the study, its voluntary nature, benefits for their community and the terms for which information will be used.

Findings

The following section reports key findings illustrating the most prominent themes that emerged from coding the multiple data sources. Exemplifying quotations from the key informant interviews were carefully chosen to illustrate the prominent themes. Presentation of findings is organized by main MBA themes (Table 1). A summary of findings is provided in Table 4. Key insights that emerge across the three case sites are discussed in the subsequent section, concluding with specific implications for water management and governance.

Table 4. Summary of findings.

MBA principle	New Credit	Oneida	Six Nations
Protection of sensitive areas	• Few mechanisms to control land use on- and off-reserve • Attitudes toward authority and the appropriate involvement of Elected Chief and Council can derail the process to administer bylaws and may increase the potential risk of contamination • Application of cultural practices to protect natural areas	• Attitudes toward planning initiatives and authority may increase the risk of on- and off-reserve water contamination • Attitudes and cultural upbringing that reinforce values for protecting natural areas are declining • Belief that funding is inadequate for protecting sensitive areas	• Few formal mechanisms to control land use on reserve lands with certificates of possession • Attitudes on-reserve contribute to a perceived inappropriateness of regulations to control land and water use • Belief that traditional knowledge and world view are important to support the protection of water • Collaboration between organizations and groups is important for protecting sensitive areas off-reserve
Treatment	• General trust in the drinking water provided by off-reserve treatment facilities • Bylaws not effective in controlling potential contamination sources • Cultural meaning exists in water related to treatment	• Perceptions about water contamination and management contribute to a lack of trust in water operators and quality of water treatment • A lack of information about land uses and their potential impacts on water quality is a challenge for water treatment and reducing the risk of drinking water contamination • Using provincial standards as guidelines may not be adequate to ensure compliance with current treatment system	• Tensions between groups often deriving from historical and colonialist contexts (both on- and off-reserve) have resulted in decision-making delay • Belief that funding is inadequate for developing and maintaining water treatment facilities resulting in temporary solutions that do not fully meet the needs of community • Cultural meaning exists in water related to treatment
Distribution and storage	• Belief that funding is inadequate for maintenance and development of water infrastructure • Few formal mechanisms exist to regulate infrastructure and achieve sought-after provincial standards	• Perceived lack of trust in the quality and safety of water resources due to previous mechanical failures	• Belief that funding is inadequate to maintain and develop infrastructure potentially resulting in infrastructure not meeting the needs of community • Perceived lack of trust in the quality of water due to previous issues with contamination
Monitoring	• Council committed to monitoring both source and distributed water • Homeowners are responsible for private water systems, recommendations not mandated or enforced; monitoring of private systems often dependent on attitudes toward authority • Enforcing rules related to monitoring natural waterways is challenging	• Council committed to monitoring both source and distributed water • Belief that Oneida is unable to serve members due to a lack of control over funding for monitoring	• Council committed to monitoring both source and distributed water • Indication of a lack of trust in monitoring effectiveness and the quality of drinking water resources
Respond to adverse conditions	• Formal procedures exist for responding to emergencies on-reserve • Emergency (notification) protocols not always followed	• Formal procedures for responding to emergencies on-reserve exist • No formal arrangement exists to receive emergency notification from surrounding municipalities (i.e. London, ON) • Oneida depends on personal connections for communicating upstream storm water overflows	• Collaboration between surrounding municipalities improves community response to emergencies

Note:

MBA = multi-barrier approach.

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

Protection of sensitive areas

Within New Credit, sensitive areas are delineated in the comprehensive community report and include forested areas, creeks and populated areas (MOTNC 2008). However, their delineation does not necessarily facilitate their protection. The fact that there are few formal community mechanisms (zoning bylaws) to intervene in land uses impacting water has resulted in inadequate protection of sensitive areas, an issue that is exacerbated by attitudes toward authority and the appropriate involvement of the Elected Chief and Council. Many participants identified that conflicting attitudes toward authority can derail the process to administer bylaws and increase potential risks to water contamination. As one participant described, “We have lots of band members that don’t like the zoning bylaw because it controls you and what you do…. The only mechanism that we have…and everybody hates zoning bylaws” (Interviewee 9). The participant goes on to provide an example: “Like we have a trucking company that’s right on the water way and he doesn’t give a shit…. Well there are zoning bylaws and there are certain distances that you have to be away from there. And well he just totally disrespected it” (Interviewee 9). This example illustrates the extent to which attitudes held within the community toward formal First Nations regulatory mechanisms underpin the inability to enforce bylaws to protect sensitive areas.

Formal bylaws are not the only mechanism for protecting sensitive areas within New Credit. Approximately two thirds of participants identified that strong cultural arrangements contribute to protecting sensitive areas that are vulnerable to land-use activities. Expressing a holistic view of the environment that is strongly interconnected by the waters held within, some participants cited an area called the “Grove” as a sensitive area where water is being protected from certain land uses through cultural practice. The Grove is a forested area that has been used for cultural and ceremonial purposes for many years (e.g. powwow gatherings). They reflected that protecting the forest is synonymous with protecting the water (Interviewees 9, 7). Intense use of the area resulted in soil compaction and a noticeable degradation of the forest and water within. Drawing from holistic cultural themes of cyclic renewal, and the responsibility toward caring for the environment, community leaders protected the site’s ecology (including water) from further degradation until it could recover. One participant described their thinking behind the process as:

I thought we should leave and host the powwow somewhere else for a couple of years until [the Grove] rejuvenates, which is like a traditional concept. You spent its abilities, move on, let it rejuvenate, as we go around we come back to it. Giving it time to get its strength back. (Interviewee 9).

The protection of this sensitive area has been successful through the use of traditional values and cultural arrangements to change land use and behaviour.

Treatment

Similar to the protection of sensitive areas, New Credit lacks the ability to enforce First Nations bylaws related to water treatment. Drawing from the MBA elements (Table 1), practices that encourage on-site treatment are beneficial for preventing contamination within the natural environment. Some participants identified that although on-reserve industry and agriculture are subject to community bylaws for discharging waste into streams, there are no enforceable regulations to assure that potential contaminants are treated before entering the environment. Concern over a lack of enforceable regulations related to treatment was common among respondents. For example, one participant explained that unless you can enforce regulations they aren’t very helpful (Interviewee 12).

Improvements to water treatment have contributed to building trust in the safety of water within New Credit amongst its members. When compared with private well water systems, communally treated water has had fewer issues (e.g. boil water advisories), contributing to a culture of trust in the current treatment system operated by Halidmand County (Interviewee 2). Further demonstrating this trust, the majority of community members willingly decommission their old wells when given the option to connect to new extensions of the treated water pipeline (Interviewee 2). Improvements to water treatment have played an important role in gaining community member trust in the quality of drinking water on-reserve.

Distribution and storage

The federal government provides funding for First Nations to support the maintenance and operation of water infrastructure (up to 80%; Simeone 2010); however, inadequate funding to provide safe drinking water and delivery of services on-reserve continues to constrain New Credit. For example, a lack of funding for pipelines restricts New Credit’s ability to supply treated drinking water to all its members. As articulated by a participant,

when we started the water system on New Credit we would love to be able to give everybody water at the end, but because of the money, funding [shortfall], [power] was being unbalanced, right away, stuff that we need, stuff that we want, [we] cannot always get it. (Interviewee 3)

In order to keep up with maintenance and upgrades, the Elected Chief and Council are forced to pull funds from other services, creating funding shortfalls in other areas, a response that one participant describes as “steal[ing] from Peter to pay Paul” (Interviewee 7). Although sourcing temporary funding from land claim settlements while the federal funds are secured is an effective way to reduce financial pressures, federal funding continues to be insufficient for meeting the needs of the community (Interviewee 1).

Similar to protecting sensitive areas and treating industrial, commercial and agricultural sources of contamination, there are few enforceable mechanisms on-reserve to regulate infrastructure. In lieu of federal regulations, New Credit utilizes provincial regulations as a guide for developing infrastructure such as wells, cisterns and septic systems. A system guided by provincial regulations without a mandate or formal mechanism on-reserve to enforce them is identified as a perpetual challenge because there is little recourse if infrastructure development fails to meet the standards. As articulated by one participant,

What happens is, [developers] do the best they can [to adhere to the provincial regulations as guidelines], but usually it’s not up to snuff. There is no way to monitor that or regulate that once there's a problem. So it continues. (Interviewee 1)

Using the provincial regulations as a guide to develop infrastructure within New Credit is important in the place of federal regulations; however, the inability to enforce these rules on-reserve continues to promote an infrastructure system that fails, at least in part, to meet preferred standards.

Monitoring

The New Credit Elected Chief and Council are committed to monitoring drinking water resources on-reserve; however, challenges remain in monitoring private water systems. New Credit’s commitment is demonstrated by regular monitoring of the communal distribution system at provincial drinking water standards (Interviewees 1, 2). Private water systems are supported by the community health department and Health Canada, but the responsibility for ensuring private systems are monitored ultimately lies with the homeowner. Attitudes and perceptions about private water sources and the appropriate level of involvement of the Elected Chief and Council in water management (i.e. monitoring) can result in the unwillingness of some community members to allow health representatives on their property to monitor water resources. As one participant described, “A lot of people are saying that [the Health Department is] not coming out [on my property], it’s my property and it’s my water! So they feel very strongly about their water sources” (Interviewee 10). Further, if homeowners do request monitoring of a private system, recommendations provided by the Health Department and Health Canada are not mandated or enforced, making it even more difficult to assure the safety of private water systems on-reserve.

Monitoring of natural waterways (particularly surface water) continues to be a challenge for New Credit. The two small creeks that flow through New Credit are not currently monitored, largely because the task has not been included in anyone’s job description at the band office (Interviewee 1). However, monitoring is particularly critical for the Boston Creek into which wastewater effluent is discharged twice a year, and because there are ongoing concerns about water quality (MOTNC 2008). Further, one participant articulated that effective monitoring of natural waterways on-reserve hinges on the ability to enforce provincial standards. As this individual noted about the effectiveness of standards, “who the heck is following [standards] and holding that up, and saying, ‘Oh I have to do this because this book says I have to,’ I don't think that happens” (Interviewee 1).

Response to adverse conditions

Protocols and procedures for responding to emergencies exist within New Credit (Department of Public Works and Health); however, challenges remain in ensuring that protocols are followed. New Credit’s emergency protocols clearly outline the roles and responsibilities, actions and procedures the community implements under emergency situations related to water (i.e. environmental spills, accidents and boil water advisories). For example, the process for issuing boil water advisories is well established, and includes details on how residents are notified when an advisory is put in place (i.e. radio broadcasts, hand-delivered fliers and newspaper advertisements). However, participants expressed that communication must be improved to assure they are notified in a timely manner when adverse conditions arise off-reserve. One participant described a recent spill occurring at the Tom Howe Landfill site in Haldimand County adjacent to New Credit where the protocol was not followed:

We just had a spill in January over at the Tom Howe [landfill], I think everybody was notified of that but [us], you know [you] can’t notify your band members until you’re notified. … The Town of Haldimand didn’t follow the right protocol…we didn’t find out till three days, two days later. (Interviewee 7)

Assuring emergency protocols are followed is an important ongoing concern for New Credit.

Oneida Nation of the Thames

Protection of sensitive areas

Protecting sensitive areas is a challenge in Oneida. As in the case in New Credit, attitudes over who has the authority to make decisions about water are a part of this challenge. In lieu of federal First Nations drinking water legislation (prior to June 2013), ensuring safe drinking water with community bylaws has been a challenge. Participants said that different views about who has the authority to make decisions about water weakens land-use control and increases the risk of on- and off-reserve water contamination. One participant compared this lack of control to locating a dangerous fuel storage tank next to a nursery: “Never mind [adhering to federal regulations], oh, [they placed a fuel storage tank] next to a nursery, the Band Council had no authority over land-use planning. So I don't think, like, there's not land-use planning to promote safe drinking water” (Interviewee 24).

Current funding arrangements are insufficient for programs outside the scope of water treatment (e.g. protection of sensitive areas), potentially increasing the risk of contamination to water quality. Due to financial constraints, priority is given to the immediate needs of maintaining and operating the water treatment facility rather than given towards proactive approaches such as protecting sensitive areas (e.g. protect creeks and rivers from land-use activities that impact water quality). As one participant describes, “Well, we don't have a lot of funds to, you know, do a lot of stuff in [protecting sensitive areas]. We have enough basically to run our water treatment program” (Interviewee 27). With the drinking water treatment plant already operating at capacity (Interviewee 30), protecting sensitive areas may be less of a priority as Oneida works to addresses upcoming water availability challenges.

The responsibility to protect water is embedded in Oneida’s culture; however, Oneida has faced challenges maintaining a strong sense of responsibility with each generation. One participant reflected on the relationship as a “kinship,” but lamented that “it’s certainly not as strong as it should be” (Interviewee 25). The same participant went on to describe that the responsibility to protect water is part of a circle that connects everything, including how we make decisions about water. A loss of responsibility to protect water breaks the circle and the way that decisions are informed.

Treatment

A lack of information about surrounding land uses and the potential impacts they have on water quality exacerbates Oneida’s inability to reduce the risk of drinking water contamination. Some participants expressed how Oneida’s Elected Chief and Council have little understanding of the potential risks related to land-use activities adjacent to the reserve:

the [water treatment facility] that is still in the makings [is a big unknown, also]…all the flood plain all around the Thames River is land that is agriculture, we don’t know what kind of fertilizers they use and if it affects the groundwater? (Interviewee 22)

Questions remain over how off-reserve land uses such as landfills and general water quality impact water treatment on-reserve. Further, one participant discussed these concerns as follows:

[Members] had concerns about I think the water quality, the background water quality of the Thames River itself. Issues related whether or not Greenlane landfill plumes can reach into water bed, you know, [the] waters, they’re downward gradient from Greenlane? Is it enough to, you know, cause some impact on like Oneida’s local sources of water? (Interviewee 24)

Improving information about potential contamination risks is important to participants, but Oneida faces challenges in its ability to treat water resources without further understanding the potential impacts of neighboring land uses.

Perceptions of water contamination, source water quality, and operator capacity also influence community trust in Oneida’s ability to ensure the quality of treated drinking water. Historically characterized as poorly managed, with regular mechanical failures, Oneida’s drinking water system is perceived by residents to be vulnerable to contamination. For example, its close proximity to the Greenlane landfill and location downstream of the City of London fuel questions and community mistrust about the quality of treated water on-reserve. As a result, many community members rely on bottled water for drinking and medicinal uses instead of community treated water (Interviewee 27). One participant describes an aspect of mistrust:

You know and since [contaminants] can possibly get into our system since it's, it's a groundwater under the influence [of surface water] system (GUDI), then that's very concerning to us even though we do have our water treatment…nobody likes to be taking water…when they're just downstream from sewage outputs and stuff like that…people always have their doubts about whether or not Greenlane has any effect on our water supply especially considering we're slightly downhill from Greenlane and, you know, you can't tell water what to do. (Interviewee 27)

Oneida’s Elected Chief and Council’s commitment to use provincial standards as a guide to treat water resources does not ensure its full compliance. For example, according to participants at the time of writing, treatment facilities did not meet provincial standards. One participant describes the situation as follows:

We are undergoing another upgrade pretty soon. We have just had a water study that has been completed and been reviewed by the higher ups…. Our system will have to change because we don’t meet the [provincial] regulation systems right now. (Interviewee 22)

Distribution and storage

In Oneida, the mistrust of community members about the quality and safety of drinking water resources on-reserve is related to past mechanical failures in the water distribution line, water advisories and perceptions of treatment plant operators. For example, one participant described the work environment for operating the community water system as “broken” and untrustworthy. They went further and called for operators to show more “commitment” toward protecting water resources to regain the trust of the community (Interviewee 23).

Monitoring

Despite the Elected Chief and Council’s emphasis on regular monitoring of drinking water at the source and throughout the distribution system, Oneida continues to be unable to monitor drinking water to fully meet the needs of its members. Monitoring is primarily controlled by Health Canada through the federal drinking water guidelines. Participants identified that Oneida is unable to serve its members, because it, in part, lacks decision-making power over how funding should be used to monitor water on-reserve. As one participant articulated,

[Oneida doesn’t] have the local control that they should have because Health Canada…controls the budget for the monitoring…. I think a lot of those controls that the First Nations should have, they don't have. It's with some bureaucrat somewhere else. (Interviewee 24)

Oneida’s inability to make monitoring decisions and serve its members appropriately is a challenge.

Response to adverse conditions

Oneida has formal emergency response protocols; however, numerous challenges were identified in communicating the risk of adverse conditions when incidents occurred beyond reserve boundaries. Many participants attribute these challenges to having few formal arrangements which adjacent jurisdictions, such as the upstream City of London, can use to inform Oneida about adverse conditions (e.g. an overflow event of the storm sewer system). When asked about receiving notification of adverse conditions arising upstream in the City of London so Oneida can implement precautions, a participant stated, “No, no we don't actually [get notified] even though we should be” (Interviewee 27). Currently, Oneida relies on personal relationships to communicate storm sewer overflow events.

Six Nations of the Grand River

Protection of sensitive areas

There are several key sensitive areas identified in Six Nations, including forested areas, creeks, river and wetlands. Six Nations continues to confront challenges protecting these sensitive areas because of (1) lack of land and water-use control, because community bylaws do not have jurisdiction on lands where individuals hold certifications of possession (some members refer to these lands as “private,” but they remain under ownership of the Canadian Crown) and (2) attitudes toward who has the authority to make decisions about water. Within Six Nations, there are few formal arrangements (e.g. regulations and zoning bylaws) to control land and water use on-reserve. A wide range of participants agree that there is a need for more controls. For example, one respondent articulated how,

if we only had [the rules found off-reserve] we’d have some form of structure…. Council themselves don’t have any guidelines, they can put a dump in the swamp, they can!…the land is private and there’s no bylaws and you’ll see yards full of old cars sitting on blocks upside down, uh god knows where the battery acid is gone, antifreeze leaking, oil leaking, and it’s everywhere you know and nobody gets it. (Interviewee 12)

Part of the challenge expressed by participants is that Council can do little to enforce existing rules on lands with certificates of possession because of negative attitudes towards any efforts to control land and water use through community bylaws. As noted by one participant, “There really isn't anything anybody can do because as, as a council, we don't have the right to tell somebody else what they can and cannot do on their own property” (Interviewee 17).

Despite a limited use of bylaws to control land and water use on-reserve, some participants identified the existence of Six Nations traditional knowledge and worldviews about water that can be used to support the protection (in terms of both quality and quantity) of water resources. As expressed by one participant, “We don’t need no regulations to let us know that we’re here to protect the land…I said we don’t need any because of your upbringing…you look after the land and the land in turn will look after you” (Interviewee 12). Similarly, other participants expressed how traditional knowledge motivates members to protect water from contamination and to conserve its use: “traditional knowledge is the preservation of water [quality] for the next seven generations” and “[it’s part of] conservation and making sure you don’t harm the water supply” (Interviewees 17 and 14, respectively).

Six Nations are also actively pursuing collaborative arrangements with off-reserve organizations to better protect sensitive areas. Stemming from a historical need to collaborate in response to serious flooding in the early 1900s, Six Nations now routinely works with several key off-reserve organizations to manage water resources. For example, Six Nations has collaborated with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the Ontario government (e.g. Ministry of Environment) to implement aspects of the MBA through the Clean Water Act (2006). Although challenges remain in controlling land use off-reserve, within what Six Nations considers its traditional territory, participation in off-reserve programs such as the Ontario source water protection program has improved Six Nations’ ability to protect water resources. For example, by volunteering to participate in Ontario’s source water protection program, Six Nations can advance collaboration with the GRCA to share information about water contamination. As one participant described, this relationship is built on respect:

I think [communication is good]. It's a good system. They monitor [the river], they do a good job and we have people [in our community that] keep in touch with the GRCA. They have respect for our community members. Our community members have respect for them. Our community members bring the information back to us, that's the important part. (Interviewee 13)

One participant notes that the long-standing established relationships have been “supportive” for watershed planning and contribute to improving the protection of water resources (Interviewee 14).

Treatment

Decision-making about water issues and community planning processes within Six Nations more generally can be stalled due to internal tensions between groups (e.g. Chief and Councils, citizen groups). Internal tensions are caused in part by divergent beliefs, attitudes and values over appropriate authority and control in the community planning process, and have been a feature of Six Nations political context for some time (Interviewees 21 and 35). Illustrating this tension, one participant described communications from the Elected Chief and Council as follows: “As soon as [some members] see it's the [Elected Chief and Council] letterhead, they throw it in the garbage. I wish they would leave the religion out of it” (Interviewee 16). The same participant noted,

I think it's more of a long-standing thing…some people say the Confederacy is the ruling party of Six Nations. And then we have the elected [Council] as the recognized government. We’re fighting among ourselves instead of going ahead…[the community is] polarized and so dysfunctional. (Interviewee 16)

These tensions have direct implications for water treatment. For example, during the planning process for the new water treatment facility, groups within the community (i.e. citizen groups) expressed opposition to the Elected Chief and Council’s decision-making authority. More specifically, they felt the treatment facility didn’t address the problem of water contamination from upstream communities and wanted to be consulted on decisions related to the plant (Pecoskie 2013). Tensions eventually resulted in protests and barricades in 2012, and temporarily stalled the construction of the facility.

Financial arrangements also constrain water treatment within Six Nations. Participants identified that funding arrangements with the federal government, i.e. AANDC, often constrain development because they fail to provide sufficient funds in appropriate time frames, leading to temporary solutions that do not fully meet the needs of the community (see section below). For example, as one participant explained, Six Nations is unable to get enough funding from AANDC to fully address water treatment concerns (at the time of data collection, running at capacity) and, as a result, cheaper temporary solutions with limited lifespans are used (Interviewee 17). These constraints have led to delays in the development of water treatment on-reserve. Articulating how funding constrains drinking water treatment facilities on-reserve, one participant expressed,

Indian Affairs has to pay for our water, 20 million dollars, they can't afford it so they gave us five [million], you know what I mean, so if right out of the gate you know you're going to get a third rate system, well how can you be enthusiastic about that you know? Could we ever have a system that would provide clean water to all of our community? (Interviewee 13)

Distribution and storage

Current funding arrangements with the federal government are generally felt by several respondents in Six Nations to restrict the development and maintenance of the distribution and storage systems. Most respondents noted that federal funding arrangements do not provide sufficient funds, and this leads to temporary solutions that do not fully meet the needs of the community. For example, there has been insufficient financial support for infrastructure improvements (i.e. expanded pipeline) to supply all community members with water from the new treatment facility. Describing the likelihood of AANDC supplying funding for the whole community to have access to clean drinking water, one participant stated, “No, they wouldn't provide that [only enough for a temporary solution]…. Just, just little parts here and little parts there” (Interviewee 13). Reflecting on the daily struggle to source enough money to develop and maintain infrastructure, one participant explains that “we're fighting daily…on money for this, money for that. …we're just not getting enough money from Indian Affairs” (Interviewee 17). To address funding constraints, Six Nations is seeking support from other sources (i.e. gaming revenues) to fund water services (Pecoskie 2013).

The safety, reliability and quality of water supply are important in the distribution and storage systems. Several participants identified that many community members do not trust the source-water quality because of a history of contamination. As one participant described, there is “some past history with water quality with the [treatment] plants and the river itself and, over above that, overriding this whole thing is a mistrust in the water quality in the Grand River” (Interviewee 14). Participants report that it is a continuous challenge to rebuild that trust in the water system. Steps have been taken to include community engagement opportunities to educate the community on water issues.

Monitoring

Six Nations monitors water resources throughout the reserve. For example, Six Nations conducts regular monitoring of water quality both at its community treatment facility intake and throughout the distribution system, and in accordance with provincial standards. Six Nations also supports groundwater monitoring programs (e.g. Well Aware). However, efforts to monitor were identified as undermined by some members, because they question the Council’s ability to effectively monitor water quality. For example, one participant expressed that a lack of transparency when monitoring known sources of contamination (e.g. industrial, agricultural) contributes to a lack of trust in the accuracy of monitoring and overall quality of water resources on-reserve (Interviewee 20).

Response to adverse conditions

In addition to formal procedures on-reserve for responding to emergences, a collaborative approach between Six Nations and off-reserve organizations has improved community response to adverse conditions. For example, some participants identified that well-developed relationships enable organizations like the GRCA to share information about adverse conditions such as flooding. As one participant explains:

Well, I think the GRCA has always been a good partner. I know [our members] here have a good relationship with them…. I know they [will] contact us in the event of the river is going to flood. They notify the council and the council notifies the community that ‘Hey, be careful the Grand River is going to rise 25 feet this afternoon’ or whatever, you know. (Interviewee 17)

This sharing of information to improve response under adverse conditions is complementary to more formalized arrangements such as the Grand River Notification Agreement Protocol (GRNAP) (AANDC 2000, 2005).

Cross-case analysis and discussion

The cross-case analysis of findings conveys challenges and opportunities for protecting sensitive areas. Independent of the delineation of sensitive areas as seen in New Credit, some community member attitudes toward authority and the Elected Chief and Council’s role in implementing and enforcing potential or existing bylaws (e.g. zoning) limit the ability of all case study communities to protect water resources. These attitudes, at least in part, contribute to an inability to protect and control land and water uses on-reserve. Attitudes of this nature are challenging for the Elected Chief and Council to reconcile. The degree to which they can protect water resources is often limited to working within the confines of the funding model from AANDC. This is illustrated in Oneida where financial constraints force attention toward priorities such as maintaining and operating water treatment facilities, and away from proactive initiatives that protect water resources. Attitudes that create tensions within (and across) First Nations communities are recognized by some (i.e. Cave et al. 2013; Tait 2007); however, few have explored their implications for water management and governance.

Despite the role of attitudes toward authority and the decision-making power to control land and water use, all communities expressed a deep connection with water and its association with protecting water resources. Experiences in New Credit highlight the significance of their holistic view of the environment and cultural practices that support the protection of water from certain land uses, such as described in “the Grove.” Indigenous natural laws are recognized as “fundamental” to understanding the nature of water (McGregor and Whitaker 2001; Walkem 2006, 310). Others recognize that natural laws are critical in overcoming the effects of colonialization through the fulfillment of their responsibility for water (Ransom 2000 in McGregor and Whitaker 2001), and that natural law should “retake [its] rightful place in all political and social institutions” (Alfred 2005, 13). However, what this means in practice is still to be determined. New Credit’s success in protecting sensitive areas and the waters within (i.e. the Grove) illustrates the strength of certain cultural arrangements (respect, responsibility to protect water resources) to inform decision-making and to communicate the implications of changing land use within the Grove. The ability to influence special land uses (powwow gathering, ceremony) and general attitudes against land use controls (e.g. land use bylaws and zoning) provide an example of the role and strength of cultural arrangements in protecting water resources.

Inadequate funding to deliver water services on-reserve is well documented (Christensen 2006; Swain et al. 2006b; Assembly of First Nations [AFN] 2008; Harden and Levalliant 2008), and the situation in Oneida provides an example of how financial constraints may limit the protection of sensitive areas, especially when water availability for drinking is a concern. In contrast, experience from Six Nations may be instructive. Here, active participation in planning processes across reserve boundaries (i.e. with adjacent municipalities) has enabled long-standing working relationships with organizations (e.g. GRCA) and governments (e.g. Ontario) and contributed to a sharing of resources to help overcome financial constraints.

The importance of treatment to ensure access to safe water resources was recognized in each of the cases; however, challenges remain with regard to lack of control over treatment processes, enforcement and decision-making. Within New Credit, the Elected Chief and Council lack meaningful authority to enforce bylaws that ensure adequate treatment before potential contaminants are discharged to the environment. Information gaps about potential sources of contamination located both on- and off-reserve challenge Oneida’s ability to make decisions about water treatment. In Six Nations, divergent views within the community over authority and control also create barriers to improving water treatment.

Past experiences influence the degree of trust in the safety and quality of source- and treated drinking water on-reserve. Underpinned by past water issues and the currently perceived state of vulnerability to contamination, attitudes towards the water treatment in Oneida influence the Elected Chief and Council’s ability to deliver safe drinking water. In comparison, the few mechanical failures experienced in New Credit have encouraged a sense of trust in the treatment of drinking water resources. This observed difference supports Dupont et al.’s (2014) findings that illustrate a link between perceptions of water quality and past mechanical failures and perceived water contamination, and illustrates the continued relevance of perceived water issues and their impact on Elected Chief and Council ability to deliver safe drinking water to its members.

Each case study site has a distribution and storage system to supply water to at least a portion of its members. Present funding arrangements continue to constrain the maintenance and expansion of distribution systems within each community. Core to this constraint is the ability of Elected Chief and Councils to secure financial resources. AANDC provides First Nations with up to 80% of costs associated with infrastructure; however, First Nations across Canada routinely fall short of being able to meet the needed 20% due to a limited tax base and limited ways of raising additional revenue (Swain et al. 2006b; Harden and Levalliant 2008). Despite significant investments by the federal government into First Nations drinking water systems, McCullough and Farahbakhsh (2012) argue that until the policy and processes reflect the needs of First Nations (i.e. need to control financial resources), it will be challenging to improve deteriorating water infrastructure. This is demonstrated in Six Nations where financial constraints exacerbated delays in building a new water treatment facility. Similar experiences are found in New Credit. New Credit and Six Nations are actively seeking alternative arrangements to meet the financial needs of infrastructure expansion.

The Elected Chief and Council within each community support and implement the Ontario Drinking Water Standards as guidelines for monitoring drinking water; however, this research has highlighted unique challenges in each case site. In New Credit, negative attitudes towards health representatives and the Elected Chief and Council are a hurdle to assuring safe drinking water for some community members (i.e. private systems). Further, the effectiveness of monitoring natural waterways is hinged on the authority of the Elected Chief and Council to enforce and implement protective rules on-reserve. Oneida lacks the ability to control funding related to monitoring, thus making it difficult to ensure that testing meets the needs of the community. This was not raised as a prominent issue within New Credit or Six Nations. McCullough and Farahbakhsh (2012) identify that this challenge stems from the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” format for First Nations water policy, a format that does not account for diversity among First Nations. Within Six Nations, concerns over the trustworthiness of the monitoring process bring to light additional challenges for meeting the needs of the community.

Participants from each community reinforced the importance of strong protocols and processes for responding appropriately under adverse conditions. Within New Credit, findings reflect that notification protocols for adverse events off-reserve need to be improved and followed. In the absence of formal protocols, Oneida continues to rely primarily on personal relationships to receive information about sewage treatment plant overflows. Historical relationships with watershed organizations, municipalities, etc., such as those discussed above in relation to Six Nations, continue to be effective in ensuring information flows across the watershed through programs such as Ontario Source Water Protection and the GRNA program. Actors (including Six Nations) within the Grand River Watershed, which is historically susceptible to flooding, have developed relationships working to improve flooding issues (Plummer et al. 2005). Over time, the process of working together to improve the watershed has facilitated access to resources (e.g. financial, human), communication of concerns and interests, mutual learning, and legitimacy of concerns and interests held by First Nations.

Conclusion

This paper has explored current approaches and practices for protecting water resources in three First Nations communities (Mississauga of the New Credit First Nations, Oneida Nation of the Thames and Six Nations of the Grand River) using the MBA to illuminate issues and opportunities for improvement.

Addressing the water challenges confronting the case site communities will require technical approaches (regulations, standards, technological improvements) as well as broader approaches that reflect cultural practices, social norms, attitudes and relationships (Basdeo and Bharadwai 2013). The analysis of how the MBA and its elements are expressed in the case site communities illuminates two prominent issues constraining First Nations’ ability to protect water resources. First, attitudes toward water, water operators and authority are often a barrier to protecting water resources within the case site communities. A better understanding of the role that attitudes of community members play in water management and water governance is needed to improve water resources on First Nations reserves. Second, perceived limitations of financial resources are identified to constrain water management. Opportunities for improving funding may be found in sharing resources (human, information) across reserve boundaries and exploring alternative sources. The analysis also illuminates two opportunities to improve the MBA in how it supports the needs of First Nations. First, to protect water resources, solutions that express the needs and diversity of First Nations across Canada are critical. This research demonstrates that a holistic view of the environment and cultural activities (i.e. those associated with protecting “the Grove” in New Credit) offer unique opportunities for informing decisions and protecting water resources on-reserve. However, these cultural practices are often context- or First Nations-specific. As a result, opportunities across First Nations communities in Canada may vary. Second, strategies to overcome information gaps, poor relationships and the lack of meaningful participation in decision-making are needed. Opportunities to build relationships and share information and resources may be facilitated through collaborative partnerships (Lebel and Reed 2010). These challenges and opportunities have specific implications for water management and governance. A summary of these implications, organized by the MBA elements, is provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Implications for water management and governance.

MBA principle	Implications for water management and governance
Protection of sensitive areas	• Perceptions held by community members towards authority and the arrangements that support them should be acknowledged when planning protected areas.
	• Collaborative partnerships between First Nations and non-First Nations groups may be helpful to mediate funding shortfalls by drawing on each other’s resources.
	• Cultural practices may complement formal rules for protecting sensitive areas, specifically, to inform decision-making and communicate the implications of land use change.
Treatment	• Attention towards building a sense of authority within communities to enforce bylaws may be helpful for ensuring adequate water treatment.
	• Efforts to build relationships between on- and off-reserve groups offer opportunities to share resources and information about potential sources of contamination.
	• Tensions across groups within the community create constraints for developing and maintaining infrastructure. Building common understanding about roles and authority may help reduce constraints.
	• Trust in the safety of water resources and capacity of water operators may be nurtured by demonstrating accountability and openness to how issues (contamination, mechanical failures) are being addressed.
Distribution and storage	• Limited financial resources are perceived to constrain the development and distribution of clean water. Opportunities for utilizing alternative funding sources (treaty funds) should be explored.
Monitoring	• Diversity amongst First Nations communities should be acknowledged in policy. Approaches that are flexible and enable direct participation in decision-making may help reconcile one-size-fits-all policy.
	• Approaches toward building trust through community engagement and practice that is open and accountable may be helpful for improving monitoring.
Response to adverse conditions	• Notification of adverse conditions off-reserve remains a challenge for some communities. Clarification of notification protocols with off-reserve actors (e.g. industrial, municipal) should be undertaken.
	• The flow of information about contamination risk and financial and human resources across reserve boundaries may be improved by facilitating collaborative partnerships with off-reserve actors.
	• Formal protocols between actors (municipalities, industry and province) should be established for responding to potential adverse conditions.

Note:

MBA = multi-barrier approach.

This research provides a step towards understanding and developing approaches that support the needs of First Nations to address water concerns on-reserve. However, embedded social, cultural, economic and political contexts may be a challenge for applying new approaches. Historical and colonial legacies have the potential to reproduce attitudes and norms that constrain First Nations’ ability to apply new approaches for addressing water concerns. More work is needed to appreciate the complex challenges confronting First Nations and provide direction for building more effective water management and governance in Canada.

More broadly, exploring how water is protected on-reserve using the MBA provides insights into advancing water policy and governance. This is especially relevant in the context of the newly passed Safe Drinking Water and First Nations Act (2013). After this became law in 2013, the federal government has begun working with First Nations to develop “enforceable regulations” to ensure safe access to drinking water and sanitation. The findings demonstrate the need to meaningfully include the perspectives and interests of First Nations to enhance the development and implementation of legislation and regulations. Arrangements that support cultural practice and multi-level collaborative relationships were found to support First Nations’ ability to protect water resources, yet such analysis and discussion have so far been given little attention in research. These research outcomes suggest that advancements in water policy and governance require meaningful First Nations involvement in decision-making, and commitment to include cultural practice. Further research is needed, focused on understanding how factors such as perceptions, culture, historical legacies and relationships enable or constrain water governance processes that respond to water concerns confronting First Nations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the members of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames and Six Nations of the Grand River communities, especially those who participated in the research. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the community researchers and partners who made this collaborative project possible, especially Clynt King, April Varewyck and Paul General for their generous support and leadership. As part of the “First Nations and source waters: Understanding vulnerabilities and building capacity for environmental governance” project, this research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada as well as through multiple project partners.