493
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Watershed governance or intake governance? Implications of Ontario’s Clean Water Act on collaborative watershed governance in rural areas

ORCID Icon
Pages 401-422 | Received 24 Apr 2019, Accepted 27 Aug 2019, Published online: 24 Sep 2019
 

Abstract

This research examines the extent to which the Clean Water Act (S.O. 2006, c. 22) (CWA) in Ontario, Canada is an example of collaborative watershed governance, with a focus on rural communities. This research also provides lessons for source water governance in Ontario and elsewhere, while contributing to the evolving collaborative governance theory development from the perspective of water governance. A case study approach was employed that incorporated in depth exploration of 30 key informants’ experiences within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area and the North Bay-Mattawa Source Protection Area. The findings of this study suggest that the source protection planning process under the CWA improved communication, collaboration, transparency, integration, knowledge sharing, and trust amongst watershed actors. However, there are still improvements to be made to make this process a model example of collaborative watershed governance. Communities and individuals within watersheds contributing to source water supplies need to better understand their role in source protection efforts. Factors such as the inflexibility to accommodate local concerns in the legislated planning process, uncertainty regarding funding for implementation efforts in the future, and an absence of public interest, have all negatively impacted the effectiveness of the collaborative governance of source water supplies in rural Ontario. Furthermore, there was a lack of community-level ownership of the source protection plans within the source protection areas that were not impacted by binding policies. There is a need for the source protection process under the CWA to better involve the entire watershed in future source water protection planning efforts.

RÉSUMÉ

Cette étude examine la mesure dans laquelle la Clean Water Act (S.O. 2006, c. 22) (CWA) en Ontario, Canada est un exemple de gouvernance collaborative de bassin versant, en mettant l’accent sur les collectivités rurales. Cette recherche contribuant à l’élaboration de la théorie gouvernance collaborative qui évolue sous l’angle de la gouvernance de l’eau. Une approche d’étude de cas a été employée qu’incorporée dans l’exploration de la profondeur des expériences de 30 répondants clés dans les deux zones de protection de source. Les conclusions de cette étude suggèrent que des processus de planification dans la CWA amélioré la communication, de collaboration, de transparence, de l’intégration, de partage des connaissances, et la confiance entre les acteurs du bassin hydrographique. Cependant, il y a des améliorations encore à faire pour faire de ce processus un exemple de modèle de gouvernance collaborative de bassin versant. Collectivités et les particuliers dans les bassins hydrographiques qui contribuent à la source d’approvisionnement en eau ont besoin de mieux comprendre leur rôle dans les efforts de protection de source. Des facteurs tels que le manque de souplesse pour tenir compte des préoccupations locales dans le processus de planification légiférée, incertitude concernant le financement des efforts de mise en oeuvre à l’avenir, et une absence d’intérêt public, ont tous une incidence négative sur l’efficacité de la gouvernance concertée des réserves d’eau de source dans l’Ontario rural. En outre, il y avait un manque d’appropriation au niveau communautaire des plans de protection source dans les zones de protection des sources qui n’étaient pas touchés en liant des politiques. Il y a un besoin pour le processus de protection des sources dans la CWA de mieux associer l’ensemble du bassin hydrographique dans la protection de l’eau de source de futurs efforts de planification.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost a warm and grateful thank you to the participants in this research for their kind donation of their time and expertise during sometimes very lengthy interviews. Furthermore, this research would not be possible without the generous support of the Rural Policy Learning Commons, MITACS-internship program, and The Harris Centre - RBC Water Research and Outreach Fund. Thank you to my supervisors Kelly Vodden, Maura Hanrahan and Robert Scott for their continual guidance and support of this research.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 172.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.