Harmonization Versus Subsidiarity in Water Governance: A Review of Water Governance and Legislation in the Canadian Provinces and Territories

Abstract

Given the high degree of variation in water governance practices across Canada, and the rapid rate of water-related legislative change in some provinces over the past decade, the purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of water legislation and governance that examines all thirteen provinces and territories, focusing on formal legislation and policies governing drinking water, watershed management (including source water protection), water rights, and water exports. We analyze legislative variation using concepts of harmonization and subsidiarity as a means of assessing the rationale for differing degrees of and approaches to federal and provincial involvement in water policy. Our review suggests that while variation may be appropriate, fragmentation is not. On this basis, we argue that some water issues would benefit from greater harmonization (which in many instances will imply greater federal involvement). In the cases of drinking water, source water protection, and water exports, increased harmonization at the federal level may be warranted. In contrast, whereas improving the federal role remains critical in terms of transboundary water management and water rights, this relates to its traditional activities of coordination, research, dissemination and funding rather than regulatory harmonization per se.Résumé : Étant donné le degré élevé des variations dans les pratiques de gestion des ressources en eau au Canada, ainsi que la fréquence rapide des changements législatifs liés à l'eau dans certaines provinces dans la dernière décennie, l'objet de cet article est de passer en revue de façon méthodique les lois et la gouvernance des ressources en eau des treize (13) provinces et territoires, en se concentrant sur les lois et les politiques officielles régissant l'eau potable, la gestion des bassins hydrographiques (y compris la protection des sources d'eau), les droits relatifs à l'eau et les exportations d'eau. Nous analysons les variations législatives en utilisant les concepts d'harmonisation et de subsidiarité, afin d'évaluer la justification des degrés divergents et les méthodes de participation fédérale et provinciale dans les politiques des ressources en eau. Notre étude suggère que même si une variation peut s'avérer appropriée, une fragmentation ne l'est pas. En partant de cette prémisse, nous avançons qu'une plus grande harmonisation (laquelle dans certains cas demande une participation fédérale plus importante) bénéficierait à certaines questions relatives aux 316 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Fresh Water-Related Indicators in Canada: An Inventory and Analysis

“…Similarly, fragmentation is also evident at the provincial and territorial levels (Bond et al, 2005a;Hill et al, 2008;Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2007;Fitzgibbon et al, 2006;Saunders and Wenig, 2007;NRTEE, 2010;CESD, 2010). Here fragmentation is largely attributed to each province or territory being responsible for water (except transboundary) and limited coordination occurring between provinces and territories (Hill et al, 2008;Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2007;Saunders and Wenig, 2007).…”

“…Here fragmentation is largely attributed to each province or territory being responsible for water (except transboundary) and limited coordination occurring between provinces and territories (Hill et al, 2008;Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2007;Saunders and Wenig, 2007). On the whole, there appears to be limited dialogue, collaboration, or information sharing among the provinces, a situation partly aggravated by the "silo structure" of government agencies (federal as well as provincial).…”

“…In part, the diversity of indicators and lack of cohesion is a symptom of fragmented water policy and legislation at both the federal and provincial/ territorial levels (Hill et al, 2008;de Löe, 2008). UNEP highlighted the importance leadership amongst national statistics offices and ministries of environment in order "to minimize overlaps and duplication of efforts" (UNEP, 2003, 5).…”

Institutional considerations in watershed cumulative effects assessment and management

“…This is not unique to Ontario. A similar situation exists in many other provinces and territories in Canada (Hill et al 2008). Despite this common impediment to coordinated management, the province of Ontario has delegated some of water resources management to regional watershed agencies (Plumber et al 2005) such as the conservation authorities.…”

A Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Governance Performance of Lake Basins: Towards Transformation to Adaptive and Integrative Governance

“…III Institutional response to management of resources is grossly inadequate due to rigidity and inflexibility [49][50][51][52]; often based on the assumption that natural resources can be controlled and managed; and not integrative and adaptive [40,53,54]. IV Systems are highly fragmented with problematic overlapping laws and agencies as well as conflicting implementing mandates because different sets of institutions administer and regulate different sets of resources, users and actors [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. V Governance is highly ridden with institutional gaps, mismatch and misfit across various scales, hardly accounting for all aspects of the socio-ecological systems [63][64][65].…”