Boiling over: A Descriptive Analysis of Drinking Water Advisories in First Nations Communities in Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Access to safe and reliable drinking water is commonplace for most Canadians. However, the right to safe and reliable drinking water is denied to many First Nations peoples across the country, highlighting a priority public health and environmental justice issue in Canada. This paper describes trends and characteristics of drinking water advisories, used as a proxy for reliable access to safe drinking water, among First Nations communities in the province of Ontario. Visual and statistical tools were used to summarize the advisory data in general, temporal trends, and characteristics of the drinking water systems in which advisories were issued. Overall, 402 advisories were issued during the study period. The number of advisories increased from 25 in 2004 to 75 in 2013. The average advisory duration was 294 days. Most advisories were reported in summer months and equipment malfunction was the most commonly reported reason for issuing an advisory. Nearly half of all advisories occurred in drinking water systems where additional operator training was needed. These findings underscore that the prevalence of drinking water advisories in First Nations communities is a problem that must be addressed. Concerted and multi-faceted efforts are called for to improve the provision of safe and reliable drinking water First Nations communities.

Shifting the Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the Past with an Eye on the Future

“…The First Nations water crisis in Canada is a case in point [6]. Many First Nations communities are living with multi-year boil water advisories, inadequate water treatment facilities, and little to no policy commitments to address local source water contamination [7][8][9]. While most Canadian citizens have access to safe drinking water, many First Nations communities are forced to treat water sources, or are altogether lacking clean water access.…”

Two-Eyed Seeing in Research and its Absence in Policy: Little Saskatchewan First Nation Elders' Experiences of the 2011 Flood and Forced Displacement

“…Other overarching themes and lessons that emerged from the texts include the development of respectful relationships to carry out projects, from initial design to knowledge sharing and decision making; this was repeated throughout many papers, underscoring the importance of face-to-face relationship building and the trust it facilitates (e.g., Huntington et al, 2011). It is essential that the processes of integrative knowledge production reflect the values of equity, reciprocity, and shared responsibility (e.g., Armitage et al, 2011;Cave, 2012;Gearheard et al, 2006;Longboat, 2012). Particularly in the context of Canada's ongoing colonial relationship with Indigenous Peoples, there is an emphasis on redefining Indigenous Peoples' roles in collaborative water management, either through nation-to-nation models of water governance or co-governance; a project which requires not only the transformation of the ways we produce knowledge, but also changes to the ways knowledge informs decision-making processes, and to those decision-making processes themselves.…”

“…The language used in these articles reflected the intention to use Indigenous and Western science in complementary ways, including discussions about cooperative or collaborative management (comanagement; for examples, see Armitage, Berkes, Dale, Kocho-Schellenberg, & Patton, 2011;Gearheard et al, 2006;Plummer et al, 2013;Riedlinger & Berkes 2001;Wolfe et al, 2007). Only Gearheard and colleagues (2006) explicitly stated researcher reflexivity in their objectives, though Wolfe and colleagues (2007) incorporated a consideration of the challenges "linked to the integration of Western science and traditional knowledge approaches" (p. 76) within their objectives, implying reflective practice.…”

“…More often, however, these benefits were identified as new knowledge that translated (or could be translated) into cultural, and/or environmental (water), and/or human health benefits. While much of the SRR literature included identification of the potential to influence policy through their research or project outcomes (Anderson, 2011;Armitage et al, 2011;Gearheard et al, 2006;Harper et al, 2011), it was often difficult to discern whether the research translated into direct benefits for the community partner.…”

Increased Risks of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks in Northern Ontario due to Climate Change

“…In Ontario, high levels of turbidity or high particle counts are one of the top reasons for issuing DWAs, and 78% of DWAs were issued to water systems that used surface water as their water sources between (Galway 2016. In addition, of the 158 drinking water systems serving First Nations communities in Ontario, 94 systems are surface water systems and another 13 systems are known to be GUDI (groundwater under the direct influence of surface water; Neegan Burnside 2011).…”