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

Figures & data

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2004. White Paper on Watershed-based source protection planning. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.sourcewater.ca/SWP_Resources/swp_background_whitepaper.pdf (accessed October, 2011).

 Google Scholar

Brandes, O. M., K. Ferguson, M. M’Gonigle, and C. Sandborn. 2005. At a watershed: Ecological governance and sustainable water management in Canada. ed. E. Reinolds, Polis Project, 1–105. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

 Google Scholar

de Loë, R. C., R. D. Kreutzwiser, and D. Neufeld. 2005. Local groundwater source protection in Ontario and the provincial water protection fund. Canadian Water Resources Journal 30(2): 129–144.

 Google Scholar

Ivey, J. L., R. C. de Loë, and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 2006. Planning for source water protection in Ontario. Applied Geography 26: 192–209.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kleiner, Y., B. J. Adams, and J. S. Rogers. 2001. Water distribution network renewal planning. Computing and Civil Engineering 15(1): 15–26.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pollution Probe. 2001. The management and financing of drinking water systems: Sustainable asset management. Toronto, ON: Prepared for the Walkerton Inquiry.

 Google Scholar

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2003. Protecting Ontario’s drinking water: Toward a watershed-based source protection framework, 77 pp. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

 Google Scholar

Plummer, R., J. Velaniskis, D. de Grosbois, R. D. Kreutzwiser, and R. C. de Loë. 2010. The development of new environmental policies and processes in response to a crisis: The case of the multiple barrier approach for safe drinking water. Environmental Science & Policy 13(6): 535–548.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wong, D. 2010. Water plant crucial for Six Nations. The Spectator. 7 pp.

 Google Scholar

Smith, D. B. 1987. Sacred feathers: The Reverend Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) and the Mississauga Indians. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.

 Google Scholar

Johnson, E. 1881. Legends, traditions and laws, of the Iroquois, or Six Nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians. Lockport, NY: Union Print and Publishing Company.

 Google Scholar