Quantifiable progress of the First Nations Water Management Strategy, 2001–2013

22 Pages·2015·0.95 MB·English

by  Alasdair Morrison

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne
des ressources hydriques
ISSN: 0701-1784 (Print) 1918-1817 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20
Quantifiable progress of the First Nations Water
Management Strategy, 2001–2013: Ready for
regulation?
Alasdair Morrison, Lori Bradford & Lalita Bharadwaj
To cite this article: Alasdair Morrison, Lori Bradford & Lalita Bharadwaj (2015): Quantifiable
progress of the First Nations Water Management Strategy, 2001–2013: Ready for regulation?,
Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, DOI:
10.1080/07011784.2015.1080124
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1080124
Published online: 14 Sep 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 20
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcwr20
Download by: [67.215.139.208] Date: 24 September 2015, At: 13:38
CanadianWater ResourcesJournal /Revue canadienne desressourceshydriques,2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1080124
Quantifiable progress of the First Nations Water Management Strategy, 2001–2013: Ready for
regulation?
Alasdair Morrisona, Lori Bradfordb and Lalita Bharadwajb*
aDepartment ofGeography andPlanning, University of Saskatchewan,Saskatoon, Canada;bSchoolofPublicHealth, University of
Saskatchewan,Canada
(Received 2 August2014;accepted 3August 2015)
Drinking water security is a serious issue for many First Nations reserve communities in Canada. Over the last decade,
CAD $2 billion has been invested to improve the situation by way of several key policies. Though action plans have
been developed, expert panels have been struck and commissioned assessments have occurred, little progress has been
reported,andon-reservecommunities suffering throughdrinking wateremergenciescontinue tobefeatured inthe media.
This paper presents an evidence-based critical analysis of federal policies related to drinking water on First Nations
5
1 lands, and their associated follow-up progress reports and commissioned assessments. The goals and outcomes of poli-
0
2 cies since 2001 are noted, and the scope and outcomes of each are compared. This study uses an exploratory analysis of
er government-documented quantifiable indicators to assess the progress made through the implementation of varied poli-
b
m cies and expert panel recommendations. The analysis highlights shortfalls in the collection of indicator data that show
e that communities have the technical capacities to meet policy requirements. The effectiveness of government policies to
pt
e prepare communities for the imposition of regulations introduced through the passing of Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking
S
4 Waterfor First Nations Act(2012), isdiscussed.
2
8
3 Sécurité de l’eau potable est un problème grave pour de nombreuses collectivités des Premières nations. Plus de CAD
3:
1 2 milliards de dollars ont été investis au Canada au cours de la dernière décennie pour améliorer la situation par le
at biais de plusieurs éléments clés de la politique. Bien que des plans d’action ont été mis en œuvre, des groupes d’ex-
8] perts consultées et l’évaluation commandé ont eu lieu, peu de progrès a été rapporté et les communautés des Pre-
20 mières Nations qui souffrent de boire de l’eau urgences rester dans les nouvelles. Dans cet article, une analyse
9. critique fondée sur les preuves de la politique fédérale en ce qui concerne l’eau potable sur les terres des Premières
3
1 Nations, et tout suivi des rapports et des évaluations commandé sont présentées. Les objectifs et les résultats des poli-
15. tiques depuis 2001 sont mis en évidence, la portée et les résultats de chacun sont comparés. Une analyse exploratoire
67.2 dœeusvrienddiceastepuorlsitiqquuaenstifivaarbiléeessgeotulveesrnreemcoemntmdanodcuatmioennstédeustgrporuépseentdé’epxopuerrtsé.vaCleutetrelaensalpyrsoegrmèsetfaeint séovritdirenpcaer lleasmlaicseuneens
y [ dans la collecte de données d’indicateurs attestant que les communautés ont la capacité technique de répondre à la
d b doctrine énoncée dans le projet de loi S-8. L’efficacité de ces politiques pour préparer les communautés à l’imposition
e de règlements introduites par l’adoption du projet de loi S-8, L’eau potable sécuritaire pour les loi des Premières
d
oa Nations (2012), est discuté.
nl
w
o
D
Introduction water supply of the Kashechewan Cree First Nation
located near James Bay, Ontario. Residents were under a
Access to safe drinking water is an ongoing issue for
First Nations people living on reserves across Canada boil water advisory for 2 years, and excessive chlorine
(Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] 2006). added to the drinking water led to a perceived worsening
of common skin conditions among reserve children
Despite numerous government assessments and monetary
(Canadian Medical Association 2008; MacIntosh 2009),
investments, people on First Nations reserves are 90
and subsequent mistrust of government interventions
times more likely to have no access to running water
(Metcalfe et al. 2011). The government responded by
than other Canadians (Eggerton 2006; Boyd 2011).
organizing an airlift evacuation of community members
Inequities in access, provision, management and regula-
to centers in Northern Ontario. Little information was
tion of drinking water clearly exist for First Nations peo-
ple on reserves. This imbalance is exemplified through subsequently reported on the status of the reserve
government responses to, and national news coverage of, community or the actions taken to resolve the situation
(Doucet 2005; Wingrove 2008).
incidents of First Nations drinking water contamination
In comparison, the contamination of the public water
as detailed in the following two stories. First, in October
system in Walkerton, Ontario, that resulted in the deaths
2005, high E. coli levels were found in the drinking
*Corresponding author.Email: [email protected]
©2015CanadianWaterResourcesAssociation
2 A. Morrison et al.
of seven people and the sickening of over 2300 people Increasing numbers of researchers are recognizing
in the year 2000 was well publicized and reported. A that a suite of quantitative and qualitative science-based
major inquiry was conducted to identify causes of the indicators, as well as those grounded in traditional
outbreak and gaps in government policies. Practices knowledge, are needed for assessing policy interventions
potentially contributing to the incident were investigated with First Nations people (Cameron 2012; Hill et al.
in depth, and community outreach and involvement were 2012; Ford et al. 2013). Qualitative indicators, such as
paramount in the investigative process. The Walkerton the quality of long-term relationships with co-manage-
occurrence and subsequent inquiry led to substantial ment agencies, and clear on-reserve leadership, among
improvements in municipal water management proce- others, are also crucial in order to ensure successful
dures across the country (O’Connor 2002a, 2002b; water service provision on First Nations reserves (Lebel
Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General and O’Connor and Reed 2010). The establishment of such indicators,
2002). Ongoing coverage of the inquiry and its findings however, is both beyond the scope of this paper and
remain in the news and other media today (see, for would be more appropriately created by and/or with First
example, Cole 2014; Johns 2014; The Canadian Press Nations community members. As a first step in identify-
2015). ing potential indicators, this paper sources existing quan-
First Nations communities on reserves with serious tifiable indicators and reports on their appropriateness.
water issues have not received the same degree of public First, the varied policy documents and their progress
5 or political attention as other communities have (White reports are analyzed for their goals, scopes and concepts
1
0
2 et al. 2012; Patrick 2011). As of June 2014, Health of progress. Then, progress toward meeting policy goals
r
e Canada listed 92 First Nations communities under is assessed using government-reported indicators. The
b
m drinking water advisories. Waterborne infections on final section reflects on and discusses the actual progress
e
pt reserves are 26 times the national average, and about toward safe water provision, as reported through indica-
e
S 30% of reserve-based community water systems are tors and progress reports and the effects of putting Bill
4
2 classified as posing a high risk to water quality (Office S-8 into place.
8
3 of the Auditor General 2005; Eggerton 2006; INAC
3:
1 2007; Simeone 2010; Heath Canada 2014). The water
] at contamination in Kashechewan, related incidents in other Background
08 communities and current statistics point to inequities in
2 Responses and action plans
9. the provision and management of drinking water in
3 The federal government’s response to water access and
1 Canada (Patrick 2011).
5. managementissuesonFirstNationsreserveshasprimarily
1 This paper details the gaps in water service provision
7.2 of on-reserve populations through a review of key policy beenintheformofdirectinginvestmentforimprovements
[6 documents, and through a look at the quantifiable indica- in drinking water through the seven-step First Nations
by tors of progress associated with key policies and actions Water Management Strategy (FNWMS) (for complete
ed plans to improve services put in place by the federal gov- documentation, see Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
d
a DevelopmentCanada[AANDC]2010).TheFNWMSwas
o ernment and its agencies between 2001 and 2013. The
wnl management of potable drinking water and wastewater on a 5-year strategy implemented in May 2003. It stemmed
Do First Nations reserves is a shared responsibility between from an initial baseline assessment of the state of water
and wastewater infrastructure in First Nations communi-
First Nations and the federal government. Programs and
ties conducted in 2001 and 2002 by Indian and Northern
services for providing clean, safe and secure water on
Affairs Canada (INAC 2003). The FNWMS strategy
reservesareprovidedthroughFirstNationsbandcouncils,
involved a federal investment of CAD $1.6 billion over 5
INAC/Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
years (2003 to 2008). Projected outcomes of the strategy
Canada (AANDC) and Health Canada, with Environment
included increasing communitycapacities forwatermoni-
Canada serving in an advisory role. The complicated
administrative structure involved in First Nations’ on-re- toring, sampling, analysis and reporting, decreasing the
serve water provision makes it difficult to ascertain number of high-risk systems, and developing and imple-
whether each agency is fulfilling its responsibilities. The menting a comprehensive set of clearly defined standards,
protocols and policies utilizing a multi-barrier approach
evidence presented here helps contextualize the concerns
(INAC 2007). The multi-barrier approach means putting
ofFirstNationsreservepopulations,includingthereasons
barriersinplacetoeliminateorreducethreatsfromnatural
why their Charter rights (Boyd 2011) are not adequately
andhuman-madesources,aswellasprotectingwaterfrom
addressed. The development of common indicators for
contamination, using effective treatment options and
governmentagency reportingon progressinthe provision
maintaining the distribution system (INAC 2007). Several
of First Nations on-reserve water services will supportthe
additional initiatives have been implemented since the
implementationoffuturewaterpolicies.
Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 3
inception of the FNWMS. These plans were applied Table 1. Initial 21 high-risk communities by region (adapted
between 2003 and 2013 and included the Plan of Action from AANDC2008a).
for First Nations Drinking Water (PoAFNDW), the First
Region Communities
Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan (FNWWAP)
andBillS-8,whichcameintoforceon1November2013, Atlantic Pabineau,NewBrunswick
Woodstock,NewBrunswick
and which enables the federal government to work with
Quebec Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg
First Nations communities on reserves, as well as other
Ontario ShoalLake #40
stakeholders,todevelopenforceablefederalregulationsto ConstanceLake
ensureaccesstosafe, cleanandreliable drinkingwateron MooreDeer Point
reserves. Although these plans grew from the FNWMS, Northwest Angle#37
Ochiichagwe’babigo-ining
the FNWMS remained the major vehicle for improving
Kingfisher
water management for First Nations until 2013. The pro-
Muskrat DamLake
gress, however, towards the objectives of the FNWMS, WabigoonLakeOjibway
and of the plans that followed, has yet to be assessed in Alberta Dene Tha’
anycomprehensivefashion. Driftpile
FrogLake
British Semiahmoo
Columbia Shuswap
5 Obstacles to progress on the FNWMS and Bill S-8
1 Toqhaht
0
2 Several reports highlighting key obstacles for the CanoeCreek
er improvement of drinking water in First Nations LakeBabine Nation– Community of Fort
b
m communities were released after the FNWMS came into Babine
e Toosey
pt force. The report of the Office of the Auditor General
e Yukon TakuRiver Tlingit
S (OAG) in 2005 stressed the lack of enforceable regula-
4
2 tions and standards as major obstacles for the improve-
8 Particular criticisms included that there had been insuffi-
3 ment of drinking water. The second audit conducted by
13: the OAG in 2011 reiterated this finding and expressed cient consultation with First Nations, the bill lacked clar-
at ongoing confusion about the roles and responsibilities of ity about who would wield legislative, administrative
9.208] tfihremaegdenthcaietsainlavcoklvoefda(vOaAilaGble20e1n1f)o.rcHeumbebnetrtm(2e0ch1a3n)iscmons-, athned/oArctjudwiceirael ipnowceornfl(Bicotwwdietnh 2tr0e1a1ty), aringdhttsha(tCpaanratdsiaonf
3 Environmental Law Association 2012). In a letter to the
1 the inaccessibility of remote communities and ongoing
5. Senate of Canada and to other First Nations leaders, the
1 infrastructural issues increased the complexity of the
2 Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Chief stated that “First
7. problem.
6 Nations have been very concerned that the liability
[ In 2006, the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water
y provisions of the Bill [S-11] will transfer liability to First
b for First Nations, an objective of the PoAFNDW, held
d Nations with no commitment to funding, training or
e hearings, provided recommendations and reported on
ad infrastructure improvement – essentially setting up First
o options for drinking water regulation on reserve (INAC
wnl 2006). The panel members echoed many of the same Nations to fail” (Atleo 2011, 2). Although the 2003
Do conclusions put forth by the OAG and identified three FNWMS was meant to address issues of management,
capacity, infrastructure, monitoring and high-risk sys-
prerequisite conditions for any management or regulatory
tems, questions were still raised as to how First Nations
regime to succeed (Swain et al. 2006). These included
communities would create or obtain access to the facili-
closing the resource gap between communities on
ties, skills and resources to upgrade their infrastructure,
reserves and non-First Nations communities, improving
build capacity and increase water monitoring and report-
consultations and addressing high-risk communities (see
ing to meet the requirements of the new regulations
Table 1). These recommendations provided a roadmap to
(Simeone 2010; Rizvi et al. 2013).
guide the groundwork needed to resolve existent
The proposed Bill S-11 (2010) would have created
inequities and to inform, a priori, the introduction of a
new regulations for drinking water on First Nations
legislated regulatory regime on reserves.
reserves, meeting a goal of the FNWMS, but the legisla-
tion lacked specifics about how First Nations would be
Beyond the prerequisites: the gap between policy- equipped to meet those regulations (Basdeo and Bharad-
makers and First Nations people waj 2013). With the dissolution of Parliament on 26
March 2011, Bill S-11 died on the Order Paper.
Regardless of the prerequisites proposed by the expert
Bill S-11 was amended and replaced by Bill S-8 on
panel, on 26 May 2010, the federal government intro-
29 February 2012. Bill S-8 enables the legal enforcement
duced Bill S-11, the Safe Drinking Water for First
ofwater quality regulations andstandards inFirstNations
Nations Act. Bill S-11 met with great opposition.
4 A. Morrison et al.
communities, and allows the government to make regula- such as drinking water provision, reflect complicated
tions that govern training and certification, the protection human dynamics and require the assessment of indi-
of source water, the development and decommissioning vidual and organizational vulnerabilities and capacities,
of drinking water and wastewater systems, the setting of including their readiness for change (Armenakis et al.
drinking water quality standards, the monitoring of drink- 1993; Thurman et al. 2003; Rashman and Radnor
ingwater,thereleaseofremediationordersandthetaking 2005). The co-creation and use of holistic frameworks
of emergency measures on reserve land. It also allows the for assessing vulnerabilities and capacities is vital to
government to enter into agreements with non-First communities undergoing policy change (Plummer et al.
Nations enforcement agencies to administer and enforce 2013). The implementation of changes must also
the regulations of the act (Senate of Canada 2012). embrace all forms of learning, improvement and
Again, the proposed bill received objections, particularly innovation, so that sustainable long-term value can be
from the Chiefs of Ontario (COO), who stressed that the gained for all stakeholders (Rashman and Radnor
bill violates treaties and is unconstitutional, writing that 2005; Jones and Stewart 2012; Rafferty et al. 2013).
the “COO vehemently opposes the inclusion of sec. 3 in In the First Nations public health intervention context,
Bill S-8, a clause which permits the abrogation and the readiness models developed (e.g. Edwards et al.
derogation of constitutionally protected Aboriginal and 2000; Thurman et al. 2003, 2004; Johnson et al. 2004;
Treaty rights” (COO 2013, 2–3). The letter goes on to Stith et al. 2006; Plested et al. 2002) point to an
5 point out nine articles from the United Nations Declara- essential requirement that a First Nations community
1
0
2 tion on the Rights of Indigenous People (2007) that are should be enabled to implement a new policy prior to
er also violated by Bill S-8 (COO 2013). the policy’s formal introduction (Leiberman et al.
b
m Prominent legal and non-governmental organizations 2013).
e
pt also publicly raised their concerns with Bill S-8 (Cana- In the case of on-reserve water vulnerabilities,
e
S dian Environmental Law Association 2012; Metro Van- researchers have made efforts to define the human
4
2 couver 2012; Assembly of First Nations [AFN] 2013; dimensions of water resource vulnerability, and develop
8
3 Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs 2013; Blood Tribe First capacity indicators for providing safe drinking water
3:
1 Nation 2013; COO 2013). These organizations found (Lebel and Reed 2010; Plummer et al. 2013; Rizvi
at that the bill does not provide for the protection of treaty et al. 2013); however, these have been derived from
]
08 rights or recognize First Nations’ jurisdictional authority. non-First Nations frameworks applied on reserve.
2
9. It also does not include the dedication of additional These indicators fall into the categories of water sour-
13 resources to ensure that regulations are met, and places cing, financial support/funding, information manage-
5.
1 all liabilities for any failures to meet regulatory standards ment, human resources (including managerial and
2
7. on the First Nations and the water system operators, institutional capacity and/or jurisdictional factors),
[6 opening them up to financial and criminal penalties. Bill social and political factors, and technical dimensions.
y
b S-8 neither addressed the issues identified in Bill S-11, Examples of indicators that could be used to gauge
d
e which also lacked sufficient consultation with First institutional capacity include: (1) the presence of a
d
a
o Nations in its development, nor complied with the expert plan to guide community actions for the provision of
wnl panel’s recommendations prior to its implementation safe drinking water; (2) federal legislation that clearly
Do (White et al. 2011). Notably, Bill S-8 did not include an delineates the roles and responsibilities of the players
adequate understanding of the progress made under involved in safe drinking water provision; (3) fair and
FNWMS objectives, or of government responses to the appropriate conflict resolution processes, and (4) the
letters of objection to it from across Canada when, in federal government taking First Nations input seriously
June 2013, it was passed into law. (Lebel and Reed 2010; Patrick 2011; Plummer et al.
Widespread doubt that Bill S-8 will meet its stated 2013; Rizvi et al. 2013). Examples of human resource
goal remains, both within and outside First Nations indicators include adequate training for staff members
communities (Bowden 2011; Patrick 2011; White et al. involved in providing safe drinking water, and an ade-
2011; Basdeo and Bharadwaj 2013). To date, it is quate number of diligent and certified employees dedi-
unclear what evidence exists to support the June 2013 cated to water management. For examples of indicators
passing of Bill S-8 (Baird and Plummer 2013; Cave for each of the other dimensions, see Lebel and Reed
et al. 2013; Gajadhar 2013). (2010) and Rizvi et al. (2013).
These capacity indicators were developed to ensure
Indicators and capacity for water policy interventions that appropriate policies are co-created, and that the
in First Nations communities communities have the readiness and capacities to imple-
ment future laws to support drinking water regulation
Many of the challenges for Canadian communities
compliance. This paper addresses three objectives
adapting to changes intended to improve local services,
Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 5
towards a critical understanding of the policies regulating obstacles to implementation and common indicators
First Nations drinking water in Canada, by: measuring progress under federal initiatives. An indicator
was defined as a quantitative measure that specified the
(1) Identifying the motivating factors, goals and state of an assessed condition. A common indicator was
scope of the main federal strategies implemented defined as a measurement that was performed in at least
to improve water management in First Nations 3 consecutive years, assessed in a similar fashion and
from 2001 to 2013; reported within the body of progress reports reviewed.
(2) Comparing these strategies and identifying com- Results were organized into two parts: first, the con-
mon indicators utilized by government agencies crete sample of policies, their chronological development
to report, assess and gauge the progress of fed- and their criticisms are presented textually in Part 1 and
eral initiatives over this period; compared in Figure 2. Subsequent progress reports are
(3) Determining whether reported indicators show compiled and listed in Table 2. Comparisons and gaps
progress in First Nations water management among these documents were identified and presented in
under the strategies implemented from 2001 to Tables 3 and 4. Candidate indicators are synthesized in
2013 to validate the introduction of Bill S-8 and Part 2, and progress is assessed using these indicators.
its embedded enforcement doctrine. Evidence-based evaluation of progress is presented in
Figure 3.
5 In appraising these gaps, this paper aims to support
1
0
2 future policy-makers, public health practitioners and Results
r
e local people in building the tools for evaluating the
b Part 1: introduction to strategies for the improvement
m implementation and success of Bill S-8 and others like it
e of First Nations water management
pt in First Nations communities.
e
S Federal initiatives implemented from 2001to 2013 are
4
2 summarized in the following sections and outlined in
3:38 Methods mFiegnutr.eF2e.dEearaclhisneictitaiotinveasnaplryizmeasrithlye cinovnotelvnetdofthoeneasdsoecsus--
1
at Approach and sampling ment of conditions in First Nations communities and
8] Taking lessons from evidence-informed public health investments in infrastructure, operations and mainte-
0
2 practitioners and policy-makers (Kohatsu et al. 2004; nance, water quality monitoring skills and the develop-
9.
3 Kemm 2006; Murray and Frenk 2008), the research team ment of water management protocols specific to First
1
5. critically reviewed water management policies applicable Nations’ needs. The implementation of Bill S-8 in June
1
7.2 to First Nations by following the stepwise process of evi- 2013 was a culminating event within this timeline. As
[6 dence-informed public health policy reviewing outlined noted in Figure 2, eight policy documents including six
by by Ciliska et al. (2008) and illustrated in Figure 1. plans or pieces of legislation, one set of expert panel
ed This approach was further enhanced by considering recommendations and one commissioned report were
d
a systematic public heath approaches in the evaluation of included in the primary data for examining objective 1.
o
nl programs,systemsandanalysestosupportpolicychoices. Figure 2 summarizes the motivation, responsible
w
o Focusing on both existing and developing policies and agencies and major obstacles identified in the imple-
D
identifying gaps in the requirements for the implementa- mentation of each policy.
tion of these policies (Brownson et al. 2010), including
communities’ capacities to implement them (Braveman
et al. 2011), this methodology can easily be applied as a Baseline assessment, 2001–2002
comparative tool for bridging on-site practitioner insights Federal strategies were born out of an initial assessment
andprogressreportstatisticswithdistantpolicy-makers. of drinking water and wastewater systems in Canadian
This research began with a focused search for First Nations Communities conducted by INAC in
indicators in the primary literature, i.e. federally pub- 2001–2002. The assessment evaluated the physical and
lished policy documents, including legislation, reports operational components of on-reserve systems, and the
and websites. Literature assessing the outcomes of these training levels of system operators, identified water and
policies was also obtained through database searches of wastewater systems unable to meet Canadian Guidelines
Scopus, Thompson Institute for Scientific Information’s for Drinking Water Quality and Effluent Quality and
Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar and Canadian Wastewater Treatment (Health Canada 2012) and esti-
Human Rights Reporter Online. Information was mated the costs of remedial actions to address identified
accessed over a 10-month period from October 2013 to deficiencies (INAC 2003). This assessment involved the
July 2014. Relevant progress reports were studied to review of 740 drinking water and 492 wastewater sys-
identify the sources, goals and scopes of strategic plans, tems serving 691 First Nations communities within
6 A. Morrison et al.
5
1
0
2
r
e
b
m
e
pt
e
S
4
2
8
3
3:
1
at
]
8
0
2
9.
3
1
5.
1
2
7.
6
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
Figure1. Evidence-informedpublic healthpolicyreviewingprocess(adaptedfrom Ciliskaetal.2008;Brownson etal.2010;Brave-
man et al.2011).
Canada; an additional 12% of First Nations people in 2010). The assessment did not include reviews of histori-
Canada are not served by a drinking or wastewater sys- cal records or water-borne public health emergencies, and
tem. The assessment provided a limited snapshot of very lacked systematic comparisons of First Nations commu-
poor baseline conditions and capacities in these nity water systems with those of comparable non-First
communities compared with public and private water sys- Nations communities. Such comparisons would have pro-
tem conditions and capacities across the country as a vided relevant information about the cost-effectiveness of
whole (Carter and Danert 2003; INAC 2003; Charrois investments made inFirst Nations water systems.
Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 7
5
1
0
2
r
e
b
m
e
pt
e
S
4
2
8
3
3: Figure2. Timeline andcharacteristics of primaryFirst Nationswater policy documents.
1
at
]
8
0 Table 2. Federalpolicies andaction plans,andassociated progress reports.
2
9.
3 Federal governmentinitiative Progressreport
1
5.
1 Baseline National Assessment,2001–2003 2003National Assessment (INAC)
2
7. First NationsWater ManagementStrategy (FNWMS), 2003–2008 2007Summative Evaluation(INAC)
6
[ 2011 National Assessment (Contractedfrom
y
b Neegan BurnsideLtd.)
d Planof Actionfor First NationsDrinkingWater (PoFNDW) andFirst NationsWaste 2006PoFNDW progress report (INAC)
e
d Water ActionPlan(FNWWAP),2006–2012 2007PoFNDW progress report (INAC)
a
o 2008PoFNDW progress report (INAC)
nl
w 2008/09FNWWAP progress report (INAC)
o 2009/10FNWWAP progress report (INAC)
D
Post-FNWMSInvestment 2010/12Water andWastewater Report
(AANDC)
Notes:INAC,IndianandNorthernAffairsCanada;AANDC,AboriginalAffairsandNorthernDevelopmentCanada.
The First Nations Water Management Strategy, high-priority communities, water and wastewater facili-
2003–2008 ties meeting established design, construction and water
quality standards, as well as for the continued expansion
In response to this baseline assessment, in 2003 the
and enhancement of training programs with mandatory
FNWMS was conceived. The FNWMS was jointly
certification requirements for all operators. It also applied
developed by INAC and Health Canada. It was based on
to plans for effective and sustainable water quality moni-
a national approach and shaped by provincial and territo-
rial management regimes in place at the time. The strat- toring, operation and management programming. In addi-
egy outlined a 7-point plan for on-reserve water and tion, the FNWMS called for the development of
integrated water-quality management protocols, inclusive
wastewater. It was implemented over 5 years (2003 to
of clearly defined roles and responsibilities, standards,
2008), and involved a total federal investment of CAD
protocols and policies consistent with national perfor-
$1.6 billion. The strategy was intended to guide the
mance standards. It was to use a multi-barrier approach
implementation of plans to upgrade and build, in
8 A. Morrison et al.
Table 3. Alignment of objectives across strategy documents.
Strategy/action plan
FNWMS Expert panel PoAFNDW FNWMS Bill
(2003) (2006–2007) (2008) (2008) S-8
Objectives
p p p p
Increasing community capacity andtraining p p p p p
Improved water monitoring, sampling, testing, analysis,
reporting p p p p
Decrease high-risk systems p p p p p
Develop standards,policies andprotocols for wateroperation,
maintenance andmanagement p p p
Investment inremote monitoring p p
Investment insmall watersystems p p p
Increased government-governance capacity p p
Public education
Notes:FNWMS,FirstNationsWaterManagementStrategy;PoAFNDW,PlanofActionforFirstNationsDrinkingWater.
5 and include emergency response procedures, as well as a systems. Two further actions were a clear commitment to
1
0 public awareness campaign to inform First Nations deci- report progress on a regular basis, and the engagement
2
er sion-makers of their roles and responsibilities in ensuring of an expert panel who would advise on appropriate
b
m the safety of water supplies within their communities regulatory frameworks and new legislation.
e
pt (INAC 2007). Barriers to the PoAFNDW included the need for
Se In compliance with Treasury Board policies specific additional funding and capacity-building for certification
4
2 to transfer payments and evaluation, a results-based man- and monitoring programs, better and more meaningful
8
3 agement and accountability framework (RMAF) was consultative practices, and the expansion of the scope of
13: developed for the FNWMS. Utilizing this framework, water provision to include small and private systems
at the FNWMS strategy was implemented through four key (AANDC 2008b). Furthermore, there was a need for
]
8 activities and their outputs. According to the RMAF, the investment in a national wastewater system and the co-
0
9.2 key activities and outputs were expected to produce development, with community members and supporting
13 immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes. agencies, of new procedures for addressing and prevent-
5. Barriers to the implementation of the FNWMS ing waterborne illnesses (Swain et al. 2006; AANDC
1
7.2 included infrastructural deficiencies, low progress on 2008b; Christensen et al. 2010; White et al. 2011, 2012;
[6 remedial action plans, the lack of an expert panel for Cave et al. 2013).
y
b consultation about water management decisions, a low
ed capacity for achieving certifications for operating and
d
a monitoring water systems, and irregular reporting (Swain
nlo et al. 2006; AANDC 2007, 2008a, 2009; Mascarenhas The expert panel recommendations on safe drinking
w water for First Nations, 2006
o 2007; Neegan Burnside Ltd. 2011; von der Porten and
D
In 2006, INAC and the AFN appointed an expert panel
de Loë 2010).
on safe drinking water for First Nations to hold hearings,
provide recommendations and report on options for
The Plan of Action for First Nations Drinking Water, drinking water regulation on reserve (INAC 2006). The
2006–2008 expert panel identified three prerequisite conditions for
any management or regulatory regime to succeed in First
In March 2006, the 2-year Plan of Action for First
Nations communities. First, the federal government
Nations Drinking Water (PoAFNDW) was introduced to
needed to close the resource gap between First Nations
further the aims of the FNWMS. It included an invest-
ment of CAD $60 million, and five major planned and non-First Nations communities across Canada by, at
a minimum, giving them the same resources so that they
actions. These included the implementation of a protocol
could work to develop the necessary local capacity to
for safe drinking water that contained standards for the
administer, enforce and comply with any regulatory
design, construction, operation, maintenance and moni-
regime introduced. The government was to provide the
toring of drinking water systems in First Nations
means for sustainable operations and maintenance proce-
communities, mandatory training for all treatment-plant
operators with the oversight of certified operators, initia- dures to ensure that infrastructure and facilities on
reserve meet the same regulatory standards as those
tives for remote water system monitoring and remedial
found off reserve.
plans for First Nations communities with high-risk water
Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 9
Outcomes Assessed740drinkingwaterand492wastewatersystemsin691FirstNationscommunitiestoprovideasnapshotofbaselineconditions (1)Developeda7-pointplanimplementedover5years(2)Supportedthedevelopmentofintegratedwatermanagementprotocolswithstandardsandemergencymeasures,aswellaspublicawarenesscampaigns(3)DevelopedaResults-BasedManagementandAccountabilityFramework(RMAF) fiINACbegantoimplementtheveactions;protocolswithstandardsfordesign,construction,operation,maintenanceandmonitoringweredeveloped;theExpertPanelwasstruck;trainingforoperatorsbeganunderfitheoversightofcertiedoperatorsandremedialplanswereinitiated ProvidedrecommendationsfortheFederalGovernmenttomeet,i.e.: (1)IncreasingthecapacityinFirstNationscommunitiestoadministerandenforcetheregulatoryregimes;(2)ConsultingFirstNationswithrespecttotreatyrightsandregulatoryimpacts;(3)InvestinginsupportsystemsforFirstNationscommunities (Continued)
5.139.208] at 13:38 24 September 2015 onswaterregulations. Scope fiEvaluatedtrainingofoperators,identiedbelow-standardwaterandwastewatersystems,andestimatedcostsforremediation Includedupgradesandnewwatersystemstomeetstandardsinhigh-prioritycommunities,fienhancedtrainingprogramsandcertication,theimplementationofwaterqualitymonitoring,andoperationalandmanagementprograms (1)ProtocolsforsafedrinkingwaterinFirstNations;(2)Mandatorytrainingfortreatmentplantoperators;(3)Remotewatersystemmonitoringprograms;(4)Remedialplansforhigh-riskcommunities;(5)Commitmenttoregularreportingandexpertpanelcreation(seenextentry) fiPanelidentiedthreeconditionsforthesuccessofregulationsinFirstNationscommunities: (1)Closetheresourcegap;(2)Communityconsultation;(3)Addresshigh-riskcommunities
Downloaded by [67.21 entstothecurrentstateofFirstNati Goal Assessphysicalandoperationalcomponentsofon-reservewatersystems CreateandimplementaplanforFirstNationswaterandwastewatermanagement InvestCAD$60million,conductfivemajoractionstofurthertheFNWMSover2years Appointapaneltoholdhearings,providerecommendations,andreportontheprogressofFirstNationscommunitywatersystems
m
ntributionofpolicydocu Policyanditssource BaselineAssessment,INAC FirstNationsWaterManagementStrategy,INACandHealthCanada ThePlanofActionforFirstNationsDrinkingWater,INACandFederalInterlocutor ExpertPanelonSafeDrinkingWaterforFirstNations,INACandAssemblyofFirstNations
o
c
e
h
T
3 8 8
0 0 0
4. 20 20 20
ble ars –01 –03 –06
Ta Ye 20 20 20