The capacity gap: Understanding impediments to sustainable drinking water systems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador

Abstract

This article outlines the results of a two-year research project that examined drinking water challenges in rural and small-town Newfoundland and Labrador. A mixed-methods approach was used, including literature review, media scans, a driver-pressure-state-impact-response analysis, policy workshops, community surveys and consultations, case studies and key informant interviews. This interdisciplinary study examined four interrelated components of drinking water systems: source water quality and quantity; water infrastructure and operations; public perception, awareness and demand; and policy and governance. Issues identified include: aging, degrading and inappropriate infrastructure; high disinfectant by-products; use and misuse of chlorine; long-term boil water advisories; use of untreated water sources; and minimal source water protection. As other studies have found elsewhere in Canada, local actors in Newfoundland and Labrador communities of 1000 or fewer often exhibit inadequate technical/human, social, institutional and financial capacity to address their drinking water challenges. New water policies and governance arrangements are needed that emphasize strategic and efficient investments, including the utilization of regional approaches, long-term planning and asset management activities. Furthermore, greater focus is needed on capacity development and the engagement and education of decision makers, staff, the public, and other groups that can help local governments address their drinking water challenges.

Cet article résume les résultats d’un projet de recherche d’une durée de deux ans qui a examiné les défis de l’eau potable qui existent dans les zones rurales et petites villes de Terre Neuve et Labrador. Une approche méthodologique mixte a été utilisée, y compris une revue de la littérature et des médias, une analyse forces motrices-pressions-état-impact-réponses, les sondages et consultations des communautés, les études de cas et les entrevues des répondants clés. Cette étude interdisciplinaire a examiné quatre composantes interdépendantes des réseaux d’eau potable : la qualité et la quantité des eaux sources; les infrastructures et opérations d’eau; la perception, sensibilisation et la demande de la population en général; et les enjeux politiques et de gouvernance. Les problèmes identifiés incluent : les infrastructures âgés, dégénérés et inappropriés; les sous-produits de désinfections de niveaux élevés; l’usage et le mauvais usage de la chlore; les avis d’ébullition de l’eau à long terme; l’usage de l’eau non traitée; et la protection minimale des eaux sources. Comme des études ont démontré dans d’autres régions du Canada, les acteurs régionaux des communautés de 1000 ou moins de Terre Neuve et Labrador ne présentent pas les capacités, techniques/humaines, sociales, institutionnelles et financières, suffisantes pour relever les défis de leur eau potable. Les nouvelles politiques et les nouveaux arrangements de gouvernance sont nécessaires pour souligner les investissements efficaces et stratégiques, y compris l’utilisation des approches régionales, la planification à long-terme et les activités de gestion d’actifs. De plus, il faut se concentrer plus sur le développement de capacité et l’engagement et l’éducation des décideurs, des membres du personnel, du publique et d’autres groupes qui peuvent aider les gouvernements locaux à relever les défis de l’eau portable.

Introduction

In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the human right to water and sanitation, emphasizing the importance of water globally (United Nations 2015). Protecting drinking water supplies is a fundamental aspect of planning sustainable communities and safeguarding the human right to water for current and future generations. However, sustainably managing drinking water systems requires a certain amount of technical/human, social, institutional and financial capacity that is not always available in small towns and rural regions (Kot et al. 2011; Rawlyk and Patrick 2013). Drawing from a four-part framework proposed by Rawlyk and Patrick (2013), this article outlines the particular capacity challenges rural Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) communities are facing in meeting their responsibilities for drinking water management. The findings presented are derived from a two-year provincial research project focused on communities of 1000 residents or fewer with public drinking water systems. This comprehensive, collaborative research project concentrated on four interrelated parts of drinking water systems: source water quality and quantity; water infrastructure and operations; public perception, awareness and demand; and policy and governance. The objective of this paper is to highlight some of the findings of this research project and outline how limited capacity is leading to the unsustainable governance and management of drinking water systems in NL.

Drinking water in Newfoundland and Labrador

Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada’s most eastern province, with a population of 514,536. Twenty percent of NL’s residents live in St. John’s (the capital) (Statistics Canada 2012a). In 2011, there were 108,836 residents (21%) living in communities of 1000 or fewer (Statistics Canada 2012b). There are 529 public drinking water systems in NL (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016a). Eighty-one percent of the population is serviced by a public drinking water system. Sixty-eight percent of these systems fall into the “very small” classification, as they serve populations of 500 or fewer people, and 16% fall into the category of small, as they serve populations of 501–1500. Therefore, the majority of public water systems in NL are located in rural areas. There are 478 public water sources (some public systems share a source); 298 of these are from surface water and 180 systems derive their water from groundwater sources (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016a). Twenty-one percent of the population relies solely or partially on domestic groundwater systems (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016b).

Responsibilities for drinking water in Newfoundland and Labrador

In Canada, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of drinking water supplies is shared by the various levels of government. In NL, federal, provincial and local government actors all play a role in drinking water management. Canada does not have a federal drinking water strategy or law (Cook et al. 2013). Federally, Health Canada works in collaboration with the provinces and territories, through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, to develop the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ). The GCDWQ are published by Health Canada and are used by all Canadian jurisdictions (provinces, territories and the federal government) as a basis to establish their own enforceable requirements for drinking water quality. Adherence to these guidelines is optional; provinces and territories are not required to enact legislative or policy measures to meet them (Health Canada 2007; Kot et al. 2011). This is despite the World Health Organization recommendation that all countries have national, legally binding drinking water quality standards (Dunn et al. 2014). Indigenous people were not mentioned in the 1948 Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada (Hanrahan 2003), which resulted in some typically federal responsibilities becoming provincial responsibilities in NL by default (Higgins 2008). As with any public drinking water system in NL, water systems in Indigenous communities are overseen and managed by the provincial government with their local community governments (Inuit Community Governments in Nunatsiavut, Labrador).

Drinking water in NL is primarily a provincial responsibility shared between four provincial departments, together with local government, through the Multi-Barrier Strategic Action Plan. The four provincial departments are the Departments of: Environment and Conservation (lead agency); Municipal Affairs; Health and Community Services; and Service NL (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016a). The NL provincial government ensures public access to safe drinking water based on the provisions of the Water Resources Act, the Municipal Affairs Act and the Municipalities Act. Various other regulations, guidelines and policy directions provide further direction. For example, public drinking water systems in NL are regulated by the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Permits to Operate for Water Distribution Systems and Water Treatment Plants (as applicable), which are required under Section 38 of the Water Resources Act. These permits relate to various aspects of water management including: source protection; treatment system; water quality and quantity monitoring; waste and quantity monitoring; waste and process wastewater; distribution system; operation manuals; logbooks; contingency, emergency and long-term planning; security and safety; consumer relations; reporting, notification and corrective actions; and operator certification and training (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2014a). While the provincial government has significant responsibilities for the provision of clean, safe drinking water, and political leaders have expressed their commitment to drinking water as a policy priority, findings of this research suggest that in NL, a large, sparsely populated province, “the provincial government often lacks in human resources to properly manage the very large regions they are responsible for and to meet all requests that are made of them” (Minnes and Vodden 2015, 3). Further, with declines in oil revenues, the 2016–2017 budget saw significant cutbacks to all operating budgets and staff of provincial departments (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016e), potentially diminishing their current capacity to implement responsibilities.

The daily operations, maintenance and monitoring of water systems are the responsibility of local governments. Municipal service providers ensure that distributed drinking water meets the required drinking water quality standards (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2002; Health Canada 2007). As of April 2016, there were 276 municipalities and Inuit Community Governments and 177 local service districts (LSDs) in the province (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2016c, 2016d). LSDs may provide certain services, including water supply, but have more limited responsibilities and financial and organizational capacity than their municipal counterparts do (Vodden et al. 2013). LSDs typically have lower operating budgets for water systems, if they operate water systems at all. It was found in a recent study on drinking water systems in NL that “six of eight very small municipalities had budgets between $100,000–$500,000, [CAD] seven out of eight LSDs had budgets below $50,000” (Dore 2015, 148).

Methods

This project focused on small communities of 1000 residents or fewer and the unique challenges that small water systems pose. The focus on communities of this size was chosen after consultation among the research team, as communities of 1000 or fewer were deemed representative of rural communities in the NL context. This study was undertaken from 2013 to 2014 as a partnership between Memorial University of Newfoundland researchers and two provincial associations, Municipalities NL and the Professional Municipal Administrators of NL. The research team included researchers from departments of environmental studies (Environmental Policy Institute), geography, environmental science, civil engineering, community health, and humanities, as well as industry associations and other non-governmental organizations, and municipal, provincial and federal governments as part of the project’s Advisory Committee.

A mixed-methods approach, using both qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative (closed-ended) research methods (Creswell 2015), was employed during this project to achieve the following research objectives:

•	Determine the current conditions of drinking water systems in rural NL, including key issues and challenges from municipal, human health, and resource sustainability perspectives;
•	Profile the drinking water policies and infrastructure that currently exist in rural NL;
•	Determine population perspectives and practices related to water contamination, environmental management, and sustainable solutions;
•	Identify and understand the roles and responsibilities of the key players in water governance in rural NL;
•	Research strategies for improving drinking water quality that have been employed elsewhere that may be applicable in rural NL, along with their relative strengths and weaknesses; and
•	Make recommendations for future research, as well as policy and practice related to water policies, programs and infrastructure.

A convergent design was used to integrate data gathered from the various research methods. Data sets were analyzed and results were merged to compare, strengthen and validate overall findings (Creswell 2015). Data sources included: a review of academic and grey literature related to drinking water systems in NL and other jurisdictions; a media scan; and a policy workshop attended by 13 targeted policy-relevant actors from municipal, provincial and federal governments, as well as a local conservation organization (Ducks Unlimited), and academic representatives. Surveys were conducted with municipal and LSD administrators and water operators, along with key informant interviews with mayors, residents, water operators, business owners, health representatives and key provincial actors. For the administrator survey, a total of 199 respondents returned surveys (48 LSDs, 151 municipalities), which constituted an overall response rate of 44% (27% of LSDs, 55% of municipalities). A separate, more detailed, technical survey was created for water operators. There are 319 permit owners (i.e. communities with Permits to Operate drinking water systems) in NL (Dawe 2014), and in order to keep their permits, these communities must have at least one water operator. The survey had 71 respondents; therefore, approximately 22% of communities that have permits to operate answered the water operator survey.

The results of a literature review and media scan findings were compiled in a driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) analysis early in the project to provide an integrated, holistic understanding of the state of drinking water systems in NL based on secondary sources (Kristensen 2004). The analysis served as a background and scoping document for the rest of the project. Eight communities (one in each Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador region) were selected for case study analysis to provide a more in-depth understanding of the drinking water-related challenges encountered in communities and the strategies employed to date to address them. Survey analysis was completed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel, and was largely exploratory and reliant on basic descriptive statistics and frequency distributions, although some specific hypotheses were tested. A two-tailed alpha level of p = 0.05 was employed, unless otherwise specified, along with the Monte Carlo method for determining the exact significance level for cross-tab procedures.

The overall analysis of findings from the project was undertaken through the use of a qualitative analysis program (NVivo), using both the qualitative and quantitative findings from all research methods. Codes were created based upon the project’s four components (i.e. source water; infrastructure; public perception; and policy and governance) and on major themes identified throughout the research. Patterns within the findings along with topics requiring further investigation were then identified and summarized in a draft report, which was reviewed and discussed by the full research team. Lastly, Advisory Committee members were asked to rate each of the report recommendations and identify areas for future research according to the ease of implementation and level of impact the change would have on rural NL drinking water systems. This helped to facilitate discussion and prioritization of recommendations. Additional feedback was obtained throughout the province. Consultations with local government leaders and water managers were an integral component of the study.

Results and discussion

In relation to water management, capacity has been described as “the ability, or capability, of a local community to meet regulations, policies or standards that have been established” (Rawlyk and Patrick 2013, 22). Capacity limitations were an ongoing theme in the findings of this research, cutting across the four components of drinking water systems investigated. The capacity issues that were identified are detailed below in relation to these four components. Rawlyk and Patrick (2013) identify four main forms of capacity: institutional, technical/human, financial and social (see Table 1). Previous studies have found that each of these areas must be enhanced to achieve best practices in watershed management in Canada (Robins 2007; Medema et al. 2008 ). Research findings are further synthesized in Table 2 according to the capacity framework proposed by Rawlyk and Patrick (2013).

Table 1. Types of capacity for drinking water management (adapted from Robins 2008; Rawlyk and Patrick 2013).

Types of capacity	Description
Institutional	The policies, regulations, legislation, protocols, governance arrangements and delineation of responsibility to provide safe drinking water.
Technical/human	The physical and operational ability of an organization to perform management and operations adequately. Includes human resources, with adequate knowledge, skills and experience to properly manage and operate drinking water systems.
Financial	The ability to acquire adequate funds to pay for the infrastructure, operation and maintenance of drinking water systems, as well as for planning and management efforts.
Social	This includes cognitive social capital such as social norms that support sustainable drinking water systems. This could include a sense of place, trust, reciprocity, values, attitudes, behaviours, commitment and motivation. This also includes networks of social agents of capacity, stakeholder involvement, public awareness and community support, public and private partnerships, and communication within and among different groups and interests.

Table 2. Summary of capacity issues for drinking water management in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Type of capacity	Example in rural NL
Institutional	- Local service districts have no regulatory power to enact conservation by-laws - Few watershed management committees/plans - No ranking systems indicating severity of boil water advisories - Few multi-level governance opportunities and coordination of efforts - Little enforcement of permits to operate - No specific drinking water act - Need for financial, institutional and technical support for regional approaches
Technical/human	- More technical aid needed for local-level decision makers struggling to reduce chlorination disinfectant by-products in public water systems - Not enough technical capacity at the local level for understanding threats to source water and inadequate human resources to partake in source water protection - Difficulty finding and retaining certified water operators - Local-level decision makers and water managers are not always aware of issues with their drinking water systems - More education and capacity-building opportunities needed for decision makers such as mayors, councillors and town staff, concerning best practices for managing drinking water systems - Lack of appropriate water quality measures, as the Drinking Water Quality Index excludes most Newfoundland and Labrador communities from its ranking system
Financial	- Lack of funds to make necessary repairs or upgrades on degrading/broken infrastructure - Lack of funding to pay water operators adequately (or sometimes at all) - Lack of funding to explore and implement solutions for chlorination disinfectant by-products, and improving the taste and look of drinking water - Local communities often not partaking in full cost accounting for determining water and sewer rates
Social	- Little to no education being done in rural areas for residents on water-related issues such as the need to drink treated/monitored drinking water, or the importance of source water protection - Very few conservation efforts or organizations/local governments partaking in water-related stewardship activities - Communication of reasons for boil water advisories is lacking

Source water quality and quantity

Chlorination disinfection by-products

Source water refers to the surface water and groundwater sources that are used to supply drinking water. A key concern found related to source water was high levels of organics in the water, in turn contributing to the formation of disinfectant by-products. Chlorination disinfection by-products (CDBPs), such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), are formed when chlorine used for disinfection reacts with natural organic matter (e.g. decaying leaves and vegetation) in the water (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2009). In the 2013–2014 fiscal year, there were 117 cases of THM levels and 153 of HAA levels exceeding the maximum acceptable concentration limits for THMs and HAAs in NL (as per the Canadian Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality) (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2015). Some CDBPs have been linked to possible health effects in scientific studies. For example, urinary bladder cancer is commonly associated with CDBPs in epidemiological studies (Hrudey et al. 2015), although evidence suggesting a link between CDBPs and cancer and/or reproductive effects in humans is inconclusive (Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 2000; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2009; Chowdhury et al. 2011; WHO 2011).

Despite the prevalence of high levels of CDBPs in NL communities, only 6% of administrator survey respondents in LSDs and 20% of administrators in municipalities indicated that they were aware that CDBPs had been identified in their drinking water in the past four years. It is clear from the research that communities require more technical and financial support to better understand their CDBP levels, potential implications and options for reducing their presence. NL municipal representatives offered examples of difficulties interpreting technical reports and academic literature relating to CDBPs, evaluating the multiple new technologies being proposed to address this concern, and absorbing related costs of consulting expertise given limited budgets (fiscal capacity). Furthermore, municipal representatives noted they need more definitive information on the health risks of CDBPs. This can be seen as well in the scientific literature that calls for additional studies in relation to CDBPs to better understand exposure response relationships, and clearer information for operational personnel on the precautionary nature of the maximum acceptable concentration values (Hrudey 2011; Hrudey et al. 2015).

Aesthetics

Also relating to reliance on surface water and organics in water supplies, aesthetic issues are a common occurrence in the province. Complaints about discoloured or “tea-coloured” water and chlorine taste were frequent during consultations, especially among communities of 1000 residents or fewer. To meet the required chlorine residual levels, large amounts of chlorine are often added to the system, as organics in the water absorb chlorine, lowering chlorine residual levels. During the Drinking Water Policy Workshop, participants explained that dissolved organic content in water can be especially challenging for small communities in NL, as it requires more costly and sophisticated filtration systems to remove organic matter prior to disinfection than the technology currently used by many communities. The water operator survey found that 93% of operators from LSDs¹ and 46% of operators from municipalities with 1000 or fewer residents operate public water systems that do not use advanced filtration (i.e. anything other than basic screens). Distaste for publicly supplied water leads many NL residents to choose untreated/unmonitored springs as their main drinking water supply. The research team found little evidence of resident education on the importance of drinking treated water.

Source water protection

Though only 6% of LSDs and 20% of municipalities that responded to the administrator survey indicated having concerns with their source water quality, there were issues raised related to the governance and management of source water. Source water protection refers to the protection of drinking water supplies through the management of contributing watersheds and aquifers (Patrick et al. 2008). Due primarily to limited human/technical capacity at the local level, source water protection efforts are often overlooked in communities of 1000 residents or fewer.

In NL, protected public water supply areas (PPWSAs) are protected under section 39 of the Water Resources Act. Development within PPWSAs is regulated using several different tools: referrals from the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee, Crowns Lands, Natural Resources, Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs and other agencies; permits for development; a watershed sensitivity classification system; and watershed management plans and committees. Designation of a water supply as a PPWSA requires municipalities and LSDs to ban unpermitted activities such as swimming, boating and fishing within their drinking water supplies (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2014a). Exceptions are permitted but only with approval from the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

As of the fiscal year 2013–2014, 254 of a possible 298 public surface water supplies were designated as PPWSAs, along with 60 of a possible 181 groundwater sources (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2015). Surveys revealed, however, that many communities are not monitoring their water supplies on a regular basis, nor do they think they have any source water-related threats to their water systems. For example, when surveyed about current threats related to land-use activity in their water supply, 59% of LSDs and 49% of administrators from municipalities of 1000 residents or fewer indicated there were “no threats” to their drinking water system. Also, it was found that 36% of the communities that indicated they do not prohibit any of the banned activities under the PPWSA regulations (e.g. swimming, bathing, fishing) in their drinking water supply area, did in fact have a water supply recognized by the province as a PPWSA. When asked about monitoring, only 15% of LSD administrators and 55% of municipalities of 1000 or fewer said that monitoring by municipal staff occurred on a regular basis. Leaving source water protection monitoring at the discretion of local governments may be inappropriate given the capacity restraints of many small communities.

Despite the well-known best practice and necessity of watershed planning for managing drinking water supplies (Conservation Ontario 2001; Wang 2001; Schneider 2010), as of 2014 there were only five watershed management committees and three watershed management plans in the province, with only one watershed management plan, Steady Brook, being from a community of 1000 or fewer (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2015). This is worrisome as watershed planning and implementation facilitates collaborate in watershed management, which is considered critical for source water protection. For example, landowner support and involvement is essential for implementation efforts (Ferreyra et al. 2008). Participants in the expert policy workshop explained that there is currently insufficient capacity at both the local and provincial levels to develop, oversee and review watershed management plans across the province, or even to aid in this process. Without these plans, strategies for source water protection are likely to be absent or weak.

Source water protection legislation is most effective when it is based at the local level, incorporates local knowledge and experience, and is inclusive of the variety of ways watersheds are impacted by human and natural disturbances (Hirokawa 2011). It was found in British Columbia that “joint water committees, information dissemination to water users, and local purveyor representation on professional drinking water associations, such as the Water Supply Association of BC, offer effective tools for operationalizing source water protection on the ground” (Patrick et al. 2008, 51). In Ontario, de Loë and Murray (2013) found that capacities to undertake source water protection under the Clean Water Act (2006) were highly variable, although conservation authorities have played a key part in boosting local capacity. Unfortunately, rural NL does not have institutions such as conservation authorities to assist with water and watershed management; however, attention is needed to such models for increasing local capacity.

Infrastructure and operations

Aging and degrading infrastructure

Aging and degrading infrastructure is a widespread concern for rural NL. For instance, 59% of LSD administrators and 44% of administrators from municipalities of 1000 residents or fewer indicated a “lack of funds to make necessary repairs or upgrades” as an issue facing their drinking water system. From 2008 to 2014, the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs gave an average of CAD $15.8 million per year to communities of 1000 residents or fewer for drinking water infrastructure projects, and an average of $3.8 million per year for water and sewer joint projects.² A recent survey by Municipalities NL indicated that communities of 1000 residents or fewer anticipate spending over CAD $28 million per year over the next 10 years on water-related capital costs.³ It should also be noted that with the aging demographics and low populations of these small towns, local ability to generate funding for water expenditures is limited. Thus, previous levels of expenditure will need to increase significantly to meet anticipated needs of communities of 1000 residents or fewer.

Consultation revealed that when new infrastructure was installed it was sometimes inappropriate for the local context, as there was not always the necessary local expertise to operate or repair the infrastructure. Furthermore, water system asset management (a means to improve the lifespan and functioning of infrastructure; Bakker 2007; Heare 2007) was found to be lacking in rural NL. Issues associated with asset management included limited maps or as-builts of water infrastructure, a lack of organized leak-detection programs, little evidence of strategic planning for moving forward with solutions, and an absence of full cost accounting. However, an encouraging program in the province is the Maintenance Assurance Manual initiative. Municipalities that piloted the new Maintenance Assurance Manual program in 2011 found that better maintenance records and practices improved municipal councils’ knowledge of their water system operations (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2014b). Further support is needed to implement this program in communities across NL.

Operator education, training and certification

The lack of asset management in NL can also be linked to concerns about finding and retaining certified water operators in communities of 1000 residents or fewer. Nearly one quarter of administrators from communities of 1000 residents or fewer reported that their water operators have no certification or related formal training (see Figure 1). Uncertified water operators were defined within the study as those who have not begun any formal training with the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Operator Education, Training, and Certification program. Certified water operators were found to be more likely than non-certified operators to: have a Capital Works Plan that focused on expanding, improving, repairing or replacing the municipal water system; have complete maps of piped infrastructure; have an office or filing area for drinking water system information; and have a maintenance plan for the water treatment system/plant operations. Uncertified water operators were more likely to only check chlorine residual levels in their town weekly rather than daily in two locations (as required provincially). Lastly, succession planning for water operators was also a concern in rural towns. Water system operators in small communities, often volunteers (73% of LSD operators and 7% of municipalities of 1000 or fewer operators indicated on the survey that they were volunteers), are given the great responsibility of operating their town’s drinking water system. Finding volunteers who are qualified and willing to take this job on is difficult. Even when operator positions are paid, recruitment and retention of certified operators can be difficult due to small salaries and unattractive benefit plans. Furthermore, valuable knowledge about the system and operations is often not passed on before an operator resigns from their duties.

Figure 1. Level of water operator certification in Newfoundland and Labrador communities.

These findings in NL outline institutional, technical/human and social capacity concerns. Similar core challenges with drinking water regulations have been identified in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, including: meeting current and emerging regulations; operator training, certification, recruitment and retention; and community relations (Kot et al. 2011). Furthermore, recent Canada-wide studies suggest that water operators in small- and medium-sized towns lack sufficient financial, technical/human and institutional (e.g. legal) capacity to undertake water management best practices such as source water protection (Patrick 2011).

Potable Water Dispensing Units (PWDUs) have been highlighted by provincial representatives and some towns as a solution to water infrastructure and operations issues in rural NL. PWDUs are small-scale water systems that treat water for drinking water purposes only (i.e. not for other household purposes such as showering or laundry). Water is stored at a central location, where it is manually collected by users (Miller et al. 2009). Provincial officials and some communities have noted PWDUs as an appropriate solution for small, rural communities because they require operators to have limited technical expertise, and are inexpensive compared to treating water for household distribution. Serious consideration should be given, however, to PWDUs as a permanent solution to poor drinking water quality versus as an increasingly expensive temporary solution (prices for the units have risen considerably in the province as their use has grown) while waiting for funding and/or appropriate technology for a better treatment and water distribution system.

Public perceptions, awareness and demand

Residents’ perceptions

This research project did not include collection of primary data directly from residents on their perceptions of their water systems, with the exception of resident interviews in case study communities. Instead the research team relied on previous reports pertaining to public perception, a media scan, and municipal opinions and evidence (e.g. complaints) related to resident perception. Very few administrators (only 10% from LSDs and 11% of municipalities of 1000 residents or fewer) indicated that residents’ perceptions of drinking water in their community were either somewhat or very negative. However, as with all survey results, the research team assumes that those communities with the lowest financial and technical/human capacity were less likely to answer the survey, which, when combined with possible respondent bias, suggests the results from the community administrator and water operator surveys may portray an overly positive picture of drinking water systems in rural NL. In contrast, media reports and case study interviews along with high usage of untreated roadside springs as a water source in some areas suggest that significant public concerns do exist related to drinking water supplies (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2015; TC Media 2015).

As previously mentioned, during consultations with municipal leaders it was suggested that distaste of chlorine and discoloured water, and in some cases concerns regarding CDBPs, led many residents to choose alternative drinking water sources such as bottled water and untreated springs. Previous studies have indicated roadside springs are an unmonitored source of drinking water that pose a risk of contamination. A study conducted in Indian Bay, NL in 2013 discovered, for example, that E. coli was found in a water sample from a roadside spring (Holisko et al. 2014). In a study done in 2009 on the use of springs for drinking water in Western and Central Newfoundland, it was found that roadside springs used for drinking water contained E. coli and/or coliforms 43% of the time (Nicol 2009). Drinking untreated water such as roadside springs poses a risk to citizens’ health. The common occurrence of this practice suggests lack of awareness and/or concern about associated health risks and a prioritization of aesthetic values (e.g. water clarity, taste and smell).

Level of administrators’ awareness

After surveys revealed a relatively low level of concern by community administrators about their drinking water systems, the research team compared the answers given in the community administrator survey to data available on the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Water Resources Portal (http://maps.gov.nl.ca/water/mapservices.htm) to evaluate whether respondents’ answers concurred with available provincial data. The results demonstrated that there was not a firm grasp within local governments of the drinking water issues in their communities. For example, 27/40 communities that said they had “no concerns with their drinking water system” had no current Drinking Water Quality Index ranking in Winter 2014 due to THMs/HAAs that exceeded federal guidelines or the presence of a boil water advisory (BWA). Furthermore, 14/40 communities whose administrators said they had no concerns about their drinking water system had noted aesthetic issues in the last three years according to provincial data. Also, approximately 1/3 (32%) of all community administrators from communities of 1000 or fewer did not know the level of certification of their water operator (see Figure 1). During consultations, municipal leaders (mayors, councilors and senior administrative staff) often noted that they would be interested in more educational opportunities in relation to drinking water.

Water use and conservation efforts

The administrator survey revealed that 19% of LSDs and 37% of municipalities of 1000 or fewer reported that they have imposed a water ban due to a water shortage. However, water conservation by-laws or programs were very rare. Only 9% of municipalities of 1000 or fewer participating in the survey had water conservation by-laws in place. Additionally, only 19% of the LSDs and 37% of municipalities of 1000 or fewer that indicated having water shortage issues had put a water ban in place to combat these shortages. LSDs have limited formal authority to implement by-laws and regulations (unlike incorporated municipalities). Provincial government representatives explained that, under the Municipalities Act, 1999, LSDs are given the power to operate their water supply and determine the “time, manner, extent, nature and recipients of the supply.” It was suggested by provincial officials that this could allow LSDs to impose a water ban, but would not include the authority to enact regulations or make by-laws with respect to conservation efforts.

Many high water users (e.g. schools, hospitals, fish plants, etc.) are charged a lump-sum payment for their water use rather than a metered rate. This suggests an undervaluation of water and lack of awareness of the benefits of water conservation. Water use is generally not being tracked; therefore, financial incentives for water conservation are lacking. There is currently no provincial water metering policy and there are few examples of metering at the municipal level, which is understandable given the capital investment and expertise needed for metering, especially at the residential level. However, better metering or at least an understanding of usage for industrial, commercial and institutional high water users, such as fish plants and schools, is needed. More education is needed for community leaders and residents alike on the benefits of conservation and preventative measures to avoid water shortages.

Policy and governance

Water-quality measures

An objective of this project was to identify and understand the roles and responsibilities of the key players in water governance in rural NL. Related to the issues noted above pertaining to a lack of understanding and knowledge among local-level decision makers about their drinking water systems, the provincial government lacks appropriate water-quality measures to aid in enhancing this understanding. For example, the Drinking Water Quality Index (DWQI), which is used as a key mechanism for reporting on water quality, excludes approximately 70% of public drinking water systems, as those communities who have issued BWAs and/or have THMs or HAAs above Health Canada Guideline levels when the ranking is taken do not receive a ranking (rather than being rated as poor). Given that most of the remaining communities that do have a DWQI ranking are therefore labelled as excellent or very good, the DWQI misrepresents the drinking water reality in NL communities overall and provides little information for the 70% with water quality concerns. Further, the DWQI assesses water quality but not the quality of drinking water infrastructure or operations. The DWQI is a poor communication tool that is inherently biased. Accordingly, communities, researchers or governments cannot use the DWQI as an effective baseline metric of the quality of drinking water or drinking water systems in NL, and as a result the index has limited utility for policy development, implementation and evaluation.

Boil water advisories

Another prominent concern in rural NL communities is BWAs. From a 2008 investigative report of 1766 BWAs in place in Canada, it was revealed that NL ranks third in number of BWAs, compared to all other provinces and territories. Given that NL has a fraction of the population of the two provinces with the most BWAs (Ontario and British Columbia), this ranking is a significant concern (Eggertson 2008). BWAs in NL disproportionately impact communities of 1000 residents or fewer. As of 29 July 2013, there were 256 BWAs in place affecting 184 NL communities. All but seven of these 184 communities (and eight of the 256 sources) with BWAs were communities of 1000 residents or fewer.⁴

Long-term BWAs (lasting for more than one year) are prevalent (see Figure 2), with some advisories that have been in place continuously for more than two decades. As of 25 November 2014 there were a total of 238 active BWAs, with some communities having more than one in effect.⁵ Figure 2 shows that, as of 25 November 2014, there were six communities with BWAs since the 1980s, 34 communities with BWAs since the 1990s, 49 communities with BWAs since the 2000s, and 40 communities from 2010 to 24 November 2013 (with BWAs in place for one to four years).

Figure 2. Newfoundland and Labrador communities on boil water advisories (BWA) of 1 year+. Map courtesy of Myron King, Environmental Policy Institute.

Many of these advisories can be attributed to lack of funds to repair water infrastructure, no one to operate the system, or issues with chlorination. Barriers to obtaining acceptable chlorination levels on a reliable basis include: high levels of organics in the water; infrastructure in disrepair; and chlorination systems being turned off by the operator due to taste, other aesthetic considerations, a perceived health risk, or lack of funds to operate. Unfortunately, it appears that the BWA system is being used as a temporary, or worse yet a long-term, solution by communities when the funds or expertise are not available to solve their water system problems. This has also been found across the country with long-term BWAs “being used as a band-aid substitute for treatment” (Eggertson 2008, 1261). The reasons BWAs have been put in place are not always adequately communicated to residents, making it difficult for system users to determine whether they are issued for precautionary reasons (such as system maintenance) or as a result of a contamination or inadequate treatment in the system. Community leaders noted that frequent or long-term BWAs have degraded public trust. While BWAs alone should not be used to assess water quality, the public often views BWAs as indicating a problem with their drinking water. Furthermore, when there are long-term (and very long-term) BWAs, local governments sometimes stop communicating these advisories to residents, raising concerns about associated health risks. Municipal representatives noted that improved communication and education about BWAs and their implications are needed, as well as mechanisms to lift BWA designations faster.

Integration and coordination

Lack of integration and coordination of water actors also impedes the capacity of local governments in rural NL. Though there is an interdepartmental working group at the provincial level made up of those provincial actors involved in drinking water management, local governments are excluded from these working groups. There are few formal channels for local governments to voice their concerns to the provincial government or strategically work with provincial actors to devise future directions for drinking water in the province and in their communities in a true multi-level governance arrangement. Also, the provincial government often lacks the human resources to properly manage the very large regions they are responsible for and to meet all requests that are made of them (e.g. removing BWAs faster, helping with watershed management plans, training, etc.). In regards to data management tools, such as the Province’s Water Resource Portal, local actors expressed the need for assistance in learning how to use these systems.

Implementation gap

Related to both local and provincial capacity, there is little enforcement of the stipulations of communities’ permits to operate, or provincial legislations and regulations, such as previously discussed with the requirement of a certified water operator and the implementation of PPWSA regulations. Insufficient financial resources dedicated to supporting implementation and enforcement of provincial programs and policies were reported as a concern. For example, the Operator Education, Training and Certification program is an important part of NL’s Multi-Barrier Strategic Action Plan (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2015); however, attracting and retaining qualified operators is difficult due to inadequate funding to make these positions appealing to qualified candidates. There is also no specific drinking water act for NL, which many other provinces have. More explicit direction on and enforcement of responsibilities surrounding drinking water management for municipalities and LSDs could improve implementation issues.

Regional approaches

It has been widely suggested, at both the municipal and the provincial level, that regional efforts (e.g. sharing of infrastructure, operators, leak detection equipment, collaborations on source water protection, etc.) could aid in water system management, especially given the limited funding base in rural NL. Research results suggest, however, that a great deal “needs to be in place” (Research Participant) before regional activities can occur. This includes arrangements to assist with the creation and management of regional operations, such as formal agreements and decision-making structures, and meeting venues. A move towards a regional water management approach will require facilitation, support and incentives.

Summary of capacity issues

The notion of capacity has been explicitly linked to water resource management since the early 1990s (de Loë and Kreutzwiser 2005; Rawlyk and Patrick 2013). A 1991 United Nations symposium dedicated to the then-emerging topic outlined three key elements of capacity building in the water sector: “creating an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal frameworks; institutional development, including community participation; and human resources development and strengthening of managerial systems” Biswas 1996, 399–400). It has been found throughout Canada that capacity is lacking in water management and, therefore, that capacity building is needed (Robins 2007; Lebel and Reed, 2010; Kot et al. 2011). For example, technical, institutional, financial and social capacity gaps were found to be barriers to source water protection plan implementation in south Saskatchewan (Rawlyk and Patrick 2013). In Ontario, source water protection has strained local technical skills and financial and staff resources (Ivey et al. 2006). The findings of this research suggest that such gaps exist in NL as well.

Both explicit and underlying issues identified with drinking water systems in NL through this research were linked to a suite of capacity deficits. Rawlyk and Patrick (2013) identify four main categories of capacity (institutional, technical/human, financial and social) that are needed to achieve best practices in drinking water management (see Table 1). The findings discussed above identify capacity gaps in each of these areas, as outlined in Table 2.

Overall, our research suggests that there is insufficient institutional, technical/human, financial and social capacity at both local and provincial levels in rural NL to achieve sustainable drinking water systems. Communities of 1000 residents or fewer are given a great deal of responsibility in providing safe drinking water to their residents. However, in many of these communities, fully implementing their mandated drinking water responsibilities is unachievable with existing capacities. Similar issues of declining human and financial resources were found at the provincial level. When combined with increasing expectations and responsibilities, this is resulting in a lack of much-needed support for small communities from provincial actors.

Rural water users’ expectations for drinking water have been rising in recent years due to a multitude of intersecting trends such as rising standards of living and higher education levels (Moriarty et al. 2013). Factors making increased expectations and responsibilities difficult, with respect to drinking water provision and management in rural areas, include small revenue bases; limited potential for economies of scale; accessibility difficulties; large, spread-out geographies; and a general lack of capacity (Ivey et al. 2006; Robins 2007; Kot et al. 2011; Locke 2011; Breen 2013). Municipalities in NL, particularly in rural areas, face many challenges meeting these expectations and ensuring drinking water security (Goldhar et al. 2013). Broadly, water security can be defined as “the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies” (Grey and Sadoff 2007, 547–548). Quantity-related water risks can relate to both having too little water and issues with too much water resulting in water-related events (e.g. flooding) (Grey and Sadoff 2007; Grey et al. 2013). Factors influencing drinking water security include access, availability, preference and quality of drinking water (Goldhar et al. 2013).

Gaps in current systems have led to drinking water security issues such as sustainability of the resource, access and availability, safety and human health risks, weak and/or ineffective governance and failing infrastructure (Norman et al. 2011). In Labrador, for example, drinking water security is an emerging issue that is exacerbated by the particular challenges faced when constructing water infrastructure in remote communities and cold climates, and by declining water levels that affect preferred drinking water sources (Goldhar et al. 2013).

Related to institutional capacity, Robins (2007) explains that deficiencies in Canadian capacity for water management, as well as learning and sharing amongst jurisdictions, are due to “the federal government’s failure to show leadership and invest nationally in watershed management” (Robins 2007, 24). The role of the federal government did not come out strongly in this research; however, they have been acknowledged as needed participants in collaborative, integrated water management (Ferreyra and Beard 2007) and, as Robins points out, are in a unique position to facilitate learning across the country related to the shared challenges small communities face in operating their drinking water systems.

Recommendations

Our research indicates that significant changes are needed when it comes to the management and operations of public drinking water systems in rural NL in all areas (source to tap). There is a clear need to foster capacity at the local level but not download responsibilities from the province. Greater monitoring and enforcement is needed, particularly when it comes to permits to operate and PPWSAs, together with education and data-sharing initiatives. Municipal decision makers such as councillors, mayors and administrators are an important target audience for these efforts. Especially regarding health concerns such as CDBPs, these decision makers often felt uneducated on this important but complicated drinking water-related subject impacting their residents. More technical capacity at the local level could help in transferring knowledge on other best practices, such as source water protection, to residents. Issues related to public perception and public consumption patterns also require resources and attention devoted to public education and outreach.

Table 3 provides a list of recommendations for policy and practice related to drinking water policies, programs, operations and infrastructure in rural NL presented in the project’s final report to the project partners (Minnes and Vodden 2014). These recommendations are intended to identify areas where greater efforts are needed, rather than prescribing specific actions, and are listed in no particular order. We suggest that the creation of action plans for addressing these recommendations should be a coordinated effort among all involved stakeholders. The recommendations are intended to be pragmatic and achievable, recognizing that what is ideal may not be feasible given current political and economic realities of rural NL and the capacity issues at all levels of government outlined above.

Table 3. Report recommendations (from Minnes and Vodden 2014, 73–74).

Policy, regulations and governance

1. Enhance stewardship of protected public water supply areas by local governments. 2. Improve water conservation programs and policies. 3. Develop more functional and user-friendly tools for assessing the state and vulnerability of drinking water systems (e.g. water quality, infrastructure and operations). 4. Create a more effective advisory system for managing and communicating risks than the current boil water advisory approach. 5. Develop and implement a strategy to address remaining long-term and very long-term boil water advisories. 6. Foster enhanced compliance with provincial drinking water policies and regulations. For example: 7. Increase opportunities for multi-level governance and dialogue at the local, regional and provincial scale, bringing together all levels of government as well as representation from other stakeholders such as non-governmental and industry groups. This would involve creating venues for integration, coordination and sharing information concerning water-related matters. 8. Provide further incentives and sustained support for regional operators and other regional service sharing and drinking water management initiatives.

Education and training

9. Offer more (and diverse) public outreach and education opportunities in various mediums concerning drinking water issues (e.g. source-water protection, risks associated with untreated spring water collection, chlorination disinfectant by-products, home treatment options and conservation). 10. Provide greater education and capacity-building opportunities concerning best practices on the management of drinking water systems for decision makers such as mayors, councillors and town staff. 11. Include mandatory certification for all water operators as part of the Water Resources Act legislation. 12. Offer more regional training opportunities for water operators.

Infrastructure and operations

13. Enhance succession planning for water operators and designation of back-up water operators. 14. Increase funding and support for asset management activities as well as management of relevant data concerning drinking water systems. 15. Implement Maintenance Assurance Manuals across the province with manuals that consider the particular challenges faced in small drinking water systems. 16. Include full cost accounting and appropriate pricing for water services in fiscal framework discussions. 17. Improve chlorine management and create guidelines for maximum chlorine levels in provincial drinking water treatment standards. 18. Continue to invest and plan for re-investment to address the infrastructure deficit in rural Newfoundland and Labrador with particular attention to communities experiencing chronic problems (e.g. long-term boil water advisories and high chlorination disinfectant by-products).

Several areas for future research were also identified. With respect to water supply concerns, future research topics include challenges and solutions related to private well supplies as well as the factors contributing to water shortages in NL communities and potential solutions. Baseline studies on all drinking water supplies (e.g. mapping, characteristics, threats, etc.) would also provide a valuable resource for watershed planning and enhanced water resource management. Relating to infrastructure and operations, a review of operational best practices for small systems would be beneficial for those responsible for operating such water systems in NL, combined with an ongoing review of technologies that are appropriate and feasible for the rural NL context. Specifically, we recommend: an assessment of the feasibility of remote technologies such as chlorine analyzer readers; cost–benefit analysis of implementing filtration and/or other DBP-reducing technologies within small-scale systems as well as at the household level under differing conditions (e.g. raw water quality, combinations of technology, and operational factors); as well as a review of the effectiveness of PWDUs as a rural drinking water solution. Further research is also needed relating to resident perceptions and uses of drinking water and on the impacts of drinking water concerns on human health in NL. This may include population-based research on gastrointestinal illnesses in communities with and without short- and long-term BWAs, and further studies on the long-term health impacts of CDBPs and collection of baseline data on the health of people in communities in NL with CDBPs above and below Health Canada guidelines. Finally, related to policy and governance, additional research is needed on: options for water conservation programs and related outreach activities; the feasibility of regional water operators and other regional approaches; new governance options for source water protection and watershed planning; improved indicators for drinking water sustainability (e.g. how to improve the DWQI); accurate full cost accounting for drinking water service provision; and the feasibility of enacting a drinking water act for NL.

Conclusions and recommendations

Enhancing local capacity is critical for addressing drinking water challenges and creating more sustainable drinking water systems in NL. Our findings are not unique. In south Saskatchewan, for example, Rawlyk and Patrick (2013) found a need for improved access to data, training and educational opportunities, greater enforcement of government legislation and regulations, and greater linkages and networks between organizations with similar objectives to improve source water protection efforts. Responsibilities at the local level for land use planning, water supply distribution, wastewater treatment, and source water protection make local governments the front line and main actors for drinking water management in Canada (Ivey et al. 2006). Hrudey (2011, ii) finds “those assigned to provide drinking water need to be afforded the training, intellectual support and compensation that is commensurate with their taking responsibility, through their actions or inactions, for the health of an entire community.” More support is required for these local actors, especially in rural and small towns, who often have little capacity and a great deal of responsibility in relation to the provision of clean, safe drinking water. Some key specific action-oriented recommendations for the improvement of drinking water policy and practice in rural NL to highlight from the recommendations outlined in the Minnes and Vodden (2014) report include:

1.	Designation of all water supply areas as PPWSAs and building local capacity to actively implement PPWSA regulations, including creation of appropriate local and/or regional governance arrangements, and watershed area monitoring measures.
2.	Development and implementation of a strategy to remove BWAs in a timelier manner.
3.	Creation and implementation of a strategy to address long-term and very long-term BWAs.
4.	Increased funding and support to communities for asset management activities.
5.	Further incentives and sustained support for regional operators and other regional service-sharing and drinking water management initiatives.
6.	Resident education on critical topics such as the importance of drinking treated water, and threats associated with untreated sources.

Provincial government actors as well as Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador have begun work on addressing these recommendations, in some cases in collaboration with the research team.

It has been said that “communities since the dawn of civilization have managed to pull themselves together in order to deliver water” (Whiteley et al. 2008, 191). Changes are needed in rural NL to give local communities the right tools to be able to “pull together.” Water policy and governance changes are needed that emphasize investments that are strategic and efficient, including the utilization of regional approaches and long-term planning and asset management activities. Collaborative efforts are needed that focus on local capacity building and community-based solutions. In order to improve the state of drinking water systems in rural NL, local, provincial and federal governments need to better align and coordinate, with the inclusion of academia, non-government organizations, industry and citizens.

Funding

Research resulting in this article has received funding from the Mitacs [grant number IT03218] and the Harris Centre–RBC Water Research and Outreach Fund.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge funding support from the Harris Centre–RBC Water Research and Outreach Fund and the Mitacs Accelerate internship program, which made this research possible. Also, thank you to the entire research team of the Exploring Solutions for Sustainable Rural Drinking Water Systems project for contributing research and insights to these findings. For more information on the project and project team, see: http://nlwater.ruralresilience.ca

Notes

1. All water operators from LSDs that answered the water operator survey were from communities of 1000 or fewer.

2. Numbers were provided directly by the Province of NL in 2014.

3. Numbers were provided directly by Municipalities NL in 2014.

4. Data on BWAs accessed on 29 July 2013 from http://maps.gov.nl.ca/water/

5. Data on BWAs accessed on 25 November 2014 from http://maps.gov.nl.ca/water/