.N . n>Z>U>.m UEZEZD 6354mm GENO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is authored by Randy Christensen. The author wishes to thank Shaunagh Stikeman and Alison Lecker for their efforts in reviewing the laws and regulations across Canada. Additional research assistance was provided by Laura Wensley. Thanks is also extended to the provincial and territorial officials who reviewed the drafts of preliminary findings and provided corrections and feedback. Janet Winters, Kori Brus, Evan Stewart and Anastasia Lintner have provided invaluable assistance in reviewing drafts and providing corrections. Nadene Rehnby of Hands on Publications managed the destopping and layout of this report with assistance from Janet Winters. Waterproof 2 October 2006 WATER PROOF 2 CANADA’S DRINKING WATER REPORT CARD SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER I: THREATS TO DRINKING WATER .................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2: PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER ............... 12 2.1 Treatment of Drinking Water...............................................................................14 2.2 Drinking Water Quality Standards...................................................................... 17 2.3 Testing Drinking Water Quality.......................................................................... 20 2.4 Ensuring Effective Water Treatment Systems.....................................................23 2.5 Accreditation of Testing Laboratories and Operator Certification.....................25 2.6 Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................27 CHAPTER 3: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILURES.........................................................................30 CHAPTER 4: IS BOTTLED WATER THE ANSWER?..........................................................................36 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 42 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 42 Recommendations ......................................................................................................47 NATIONAL DRINKING WATER REPORT CARD – GRADES ........................................................... 48 APPENDIX: JURISDICTION COMPARISONS.................................................................................. 49 NOTES ............................................................................................................................................... 60 Federal government ' Yukon $ NW Territories $ Nunavut $ British Columbia $ Newfoundland $ Alberta # Quebec Saskatchewan # Manitoba $ # Ontario PEI $ Nova Scotia " # New Brunswick % 4 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Six years after the tragic events in Walkerton, Ontario where at least seven people died and over 2,300 people became sick from contaminated water, the health of Canadians is still at risk from a patchwork of inconsistent and too often ineffective drinking water regulations. such as water treatment, binding contaminant limits, testing, operator certification and public transparency. The bad news is that – in most places – significant regulatory deficiencies threatening drinking water safety. No province or territory can claim to have implemented all of the Walkerton Inquiry’s recommendations to protect drinking water. Drinking water in Canada is at risk of contamination from a wide range of microbiological, chemical and radiological contamination. A troubling example is the thou“[Ontario’s drinking water] should have been covered by sands of chemicals and hundreds regulations which, unlike guidelines, are MFHBMMZ CJOEJOH. of pesticides never properly …Water quality standards for reserves should be no lower assessed in Canada for health than those that apply elsewhere in the province and … impacts. Canada still permits the those standards should be made MFHBMMZ FOGPSDFBCMF.” use of dozens of pesticides that — Mr. Justice Dennis O’Connor1 are banned in other countries due to health threats. Only four provinces and territories require The risks facing Canadians are more than theoretiadvanced drinking water treatment (e.g. filtration). cal. Health Canada estimates unsafe drinking water Only four have adopted drinking water quality causes 90,000 illnesses and 90 deaths every year, standards that meet or exceed the non-binding the equivalent to 13 Walkerton tragedies. And this Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality and figure is almost certainly underestimated. close to half of Canadian jurisdictions lack mandatory testing for chemical contamination. This report, Waterproof 2, updates – five years later – an analysis of the adequacy of drinking water regulation in Canada. The good news is that in five years, protections for drinking water have improved noticeably in areas W AT E R PR OOF 2 One area of clear improvement is the requirement to use labs specifically accredited to evaluate drinking water quality. Testing at accredited labs (or the government’s own labs) is now universal. 5 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND Water system operator certification programs are in place or proposed for nine provinces and territories, but it is troubling to contemplate that any government would not embrace this critical protection for drinking water systems. Public transparency and accountability is also improving, but it has a long way to go. In the preparation of this report, we have deferred our consideration of the adequacy of source water protection to a future date. Had we considered this factor, our findings would certainly be more troubling. Excluding an evaluation of source water protection efforts, the province leading Canada in protecting drinking water is Ontario. We only hope that other provinces will follow Ontario’s lead without waiting until tragedy strikes. it has direct responsibility. The federal government also fails to mandate minimum standards for drinking water quality in provinces and territories and fails to provide adequate financial, technical and enforcement assistance. Provinces and territories, left with unfettered discretion, weigh the imperatives of public health protection against increased costs and enforcement responsibilities and too often sink to troublingly low standards. Individual water systems are then left underregulated and underfunded, and often they are unable to convince ratepayers to make appropriate investments in improvements or protections perceived to be luxuries beyond what’s “required.” Other water systems may simply assume that by meeting government requirements for drinking water, public Our report also evaluates the performance of the federal governOnly four provinces have adopted drinking water quality ment in protecting drinking water standards that meet or exceed the non-binding (VJEFMJOFT quality. Where the federal governGPS $BOBEJBO %SJOLJOH 8BUFS 2VBMJUZ and close to half ment is exclusively responsible for of Canadian jurisdictions lack mandatory testing for the quality of drinking water, the chemical contamination. results are also troubling. Drinking water quality in First Nations communities is scandalous. health will be protected. Water providers should be Health Canada should regulate the bottled water able to make this assumption, but unfortunately industry. In reality, the industry effectively (or meeting current standards in many places doesn’t perhaps not so effectively) regulates itself. adequately protect public health. Aboriginal, local, provincial and federal governments should all be working cooperatively to provide safe drinking water. Within the Canadian system, each level of government has a role to play and responsibilities to meet. Currently, however, we have a “top-down” failure of responsibilities, by which we mean that the federal government avoids its role to adequately protect drinking water where W AT E R PR OOF 2 A hopeful observation is that there is at least one, and sometimes several, provinces where each of the individual aspects of drinking water protection is done well. Combining the best examples from across Canada together into one system would provide world-class drinking water protection. The challenge of ensuring safe drinking water may seem daunting, but we believe it is achievable. 7 CHAPTER I THREATS TO DRINKING WATER Safe drinking water is essential to our health and well-being. Worldwide, waterborne illness accounts for an estimated 10–25 million deaths each year, including 95 per cent of all deaths among children under the age of 5.2 Health Canada’s estimates represent a rough extrapolation from American figures (900 deaths and 900,000 cases of illness) published years ago by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.5 More recent American estimates of the level of disease caused by contaminated drinking water Canadians clearly appreciate the severity of this are even higher. In one study, experts estimated threat. Consistently, the top environmental concern that contaminated drinking water in the U.S. might of Canadians is water quality, with roughly 70 cause 1,200 deaths, 560,000 cases of moderate to severe illness, and 7.1 million cases of mild to moderate illness annually.6 In another study, The number of boil-water advisory days it was estimated that contaminated groundin municipalities across Canada increased water may cause 1,400 to 9,400 deaths and 24 per cent between 1993 and 1998. Dozens 750,000 to 5.9 million illnesses per year.7 of communities are under “standing” boil water alerts that have remained in place year after year. per cent stating that they are very concerned.3 The dramatic increase in the sale of bottled water is one indication of that concern (but see Chapter 4: Is Bottled Water the Answer?). Health Canada estimates unsafe drinking water causes 90,000 illnesses and 90 deaths every year, the equivalent to 13 Walkerton tragedies. Ongoing studies will almost certainly conclude that these estimates understate the extent of the problem.4 8 The alarming number of boil water advisories is another indication that our system is in trouble. The number of boil-water advisory days in municipalities across Canada increased 24 per cent between 1993 and 1998.8 Dozens of communities are under “standing” boil water alerts that have remained in place year after year. It is not possible to gauge the full extent of the problem because our federal government does not compile nationwide data on boil water advisories.9 (See Chapter 3: Federal Government Failures.) S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND While a clear articulation of the magnitude of the problem may be elusive (seemingly an intentional choice), there is enough evidence to conclude that the impact on Canadians is staggering. In Vancouver, it’s estimated unsafe drinking water led to 17,500 physician visits, 85 hospital admissions, and 138 pediatric hospital emergency room visits from 1992 to 1998.10 In Montreal, roughly one-third of gastrointestinal illnesses are caused by contaminants in tap water.11 The situation is even worse in rural Canada. It is estimated that 20 to 40 per cent of all rural wells have nitrate concentrations or coliform bacteria counts in excess of drinking water guidelines.12 Most neglected by the public health system are First Nations reserve communities where as many W AT E R PR OOF 2 as 75 per cent of the water systems have significant threats to the quality and safety of drinking water.13 (See Unmet Responsibilities at page 35.) The direct causes of poor drinking water are the contaminants and impurities that are too commonly found in drinking water. These might be microbiological, chemical or radiological. Bacteria and viruses pose the most immediate threat of illness or death and cause most drinking water emergencies. Inadequate sewage treatment and the disposal of sewage effluent into drinking water sources pose major risks to public health. Chemical contamination of drinking water, including pesticides, produces a horror show of health impacts – cancer, major organ damage, blindness, 9 rm0>r hormone disruption, nervous system impacts, and possibly death. The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality lists 79 chemicals that need to be limited, but the list is not exhaustive. In Canada, 23,000 toxic chemicals are in commercial use, many of which have never been subject to adequate safety testing. Any number of these may pose risks to public health that are not understood. Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are brought into use annually.14 In one positive development, the federal government announced in September 2006 a plan to study at least 4,000 of these chemicals. areas that have potential sources of man-made radioactive contamination from facilities that use, manufacture, or dispose of radioactive substances. Drinking water contamination may occur through accidental releases of radioactivity or through improper disposal practices.”16 In August 2006, Orange County California officials discovered that radioactive, cancer-causing tritium had leaked into the groundwater beneath the San Onofre nuclear power plant, prompting the closure of a drinking water well.17 Given the nuclear industry’s current expansion agenda, this threat looms ever larger. Contamination may be inherent to source waters but is often the result of a failure to protect drinking water sources from activities that pose health risks. Pesticides pose a similar risk. Over 7,000 pesticides, containing 500 active ingredients, are Given the adverse health impacts of some industrial registered in Canada. As Canada’s Commissioner activities, the deregulation juggernaut sweeping of the Environment and Sustainable Development pointed out, 300 of the 500 active ingredients were approved before 1981, Given the adverse health impacts of some industrial another 150 of these ingredients were activities, the deregulation juggernaut sweeping approved prior to 1960 at a time when Canada poses a severe threat to drinking water. standards were much less stringent. Governments across Canada have gutted essential Just as alarming, at least 60 pesticides public health and environmental protections, and approved for use in Canada have been slashed enforcement officer positions. banned in the U.S. and Europe because of environmental health concerns.15 The sheer number of chemicals and pesticides in use makes Canada’s 78 drinking water guidelines for chemicals look outdated and ineffective. Radiological materials are a third potential source of drinking water contamination. This type of contamination is often natural. However the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that some “drinking water systems are located in W AT E R PR OOF 2 Canada poses a severe threat to drinking water. Governments across Canada have gutted essential public health and environmental protections, and slashed enforcement officer positions. With 90 deaths and 90,000 illnesses a year already, how much more risk should Canadians be exposed to? The threats to our drinking water require constant vigilance. The adequacy of provincial efforts on that issue is the subject of the next section. 11 CHAPTER 2 PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER The threats to Canadian drinking water are ever present. The complexity of these challenges has resulted in the widespread endorsement of the multi-barrier approach to drinking water protection, including the Part II Report from the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry, which described the five barriers: • Source protection keeps the raw water as clean as possible to lower the risk that contaminants will get through or overwhelm the treatment system. • Treatment often uses more than one approach to removing or inactivating contaminants (e.g., filtration may be followed by chlorination, ozonation, or ultraviolet radiation). • Securing the distribution system against the intrusion of contaminants and ensuring an appropriate disinfectant residual throughout is highly likely to deliver safe water, even when some earlier part of the system breaks down. • Monitoring programs, including equipment fitted with warning or automatic control devices, are critical in detecting contaminants that exist in concentrations beyond acceptable limits and returning systems to normal operation. • Well thought-out, thorough, and practiced responses to adverse conditions, including specific responses for emergencies, are required when other processes fail or there are indicators of deteriorating water quality. 12 Although each barrier offers protection, no single barrier is perfect. Thus, an over-reliance on only one barrier at the expense of another may increase the risk of contamination.18 In 2001, Sierra Legal released the first Waterproof report, which evaluated the legislative/regulatory framework for each province and territories for the following factors: • source water protection; • water treatment; • system construction, operation and maintenance; • water standards and testing; and • community rights to information and safe drinking water. The following pages present our findings of the current state of drinking water protection in Canada. PROTECTING WATER AT THE SOURCE The importance of source water protection, along with the uncertain state of provincial action on this issue (particularly in Ontario), has prompted Sierra Legal to undertake an expanded comparative study of source water protection which will be published at a later date. S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND WATERPROOF 2 13 CHAPTER 2.1 TREATMENT OF DRINKING WATER After source water protection (the subject of an upcoming Sierra Legal report), water treatment is the second line of defence. Water treatment is itself multi-layered and usually includes disinfection. ability of disinfectants to neutralize pathogens in the water both before and after they enter distribution systems. Most water providers and public health officials maintain that some kind of disinfectant should be used once and possibly twice in the treatment chain. The potential for bacteria to re-grow in pipes carrying water to households is itself regarded by many water providers and health officials as a possible (if remote) source In 2001, we found that three out of the 13 of disease outbreaks. jurisdictions lacked requirements for basic water As reported elsewhere, chlorinated disinfection and only two provinces required more water has its own health risks. The advanced treatment. Today, only PEI does not have greatest risk involves chlorine binding mandatory basic water treatment or a proposal to with organic particles in the water to implement such a requirement. form carcinogenic trihalomethanes. By using filters, water providers can problems. The Guidelines emphasize control of eliminate most if not all of the organic material and sediment and organic material in water as part of virtually eliminate THMs. As well, they can get rid an integrated water treatment program. of protozoa such as cryptosporidium that are highly resistant to chlorine. Turbid water can serve as a source of nutrients for waterborne bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, Beyond filtration, several different options are open which can be embedded in or adhere to particles to water providers to further disinfect water. These in the raw water. This can make it very difficult to include chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloramine, determine what micro-organisms are actually in the ozone, ultraviolet light, and activated carbon and water, because they are attached to or obscured by ozone. the particles. Cloudy water can also undermine the Perhaps the most important factor in treating water is to ensure that the water itself is free of sediment. Surface waters are much more likely than groundwater to experience periodic or chronic turbidity 14 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND W A L K E R T O N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O N W AT E R T R E AT M E N T In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of water treatment recommendations to ensure the safety of drinking water: • All raw water intended for drinking water should be subject to a characterization of each parameter that could indicate a public health risk. The results, regardless of the type of source, should be taken into account in designing and approving any treatment system. (Recommendation 30) • The Advisory Council on Standards should review Ontario’s standards for disinfection by-products to take account of the risks that may be posed by the by-products of all chemical and radiation-based disinfectants. (Recommendation 31) • The provincial government should support major wastewater plant operators in collaborative studies aimed at identifying practical methods of reducing or removing heavy metals and priority organics (such as endocrine disruptors) that are not removed by conventional treatment. (Recommendation 32) • The Ministry of Environment should be adequately resourced to support a water sciences and standards function in relation to drinking water. (Recommendation 33) W AT E R PR OOF 2 15 disinfection and only two provinces required more advanced treatment such as filtration. Today, only one province (Prince Edward Island) does not have mandatory basic water treatment or a proposal to implement such a requirement. Advanced treatment requirements are mandatory (in at least some situations) in four provinces – Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec – and proposed in the Yukon Territory. The effectiveness of treatment is demonstrated by Edmonton – a city renowned for the high quality of its water treatment system. It does not exhibit a similar correlation between drinking water and gastrointestinal illness as seen in Montreal and Vancouver (and discussed in previous section).19 FINDINGS In 2001, our comparison of water treatment requirements found that three out of the thirteen jurisdictions lacked requirements for basic water Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 1 of the Appendix. D I S I N F E C T I O N A N D A D VA N C E D W AT E R T R E AT M E N T R E Q U I R E M E N T S PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES :FBS 16 JODMVEJOH QSPQPTFE Basic disinfection 10 12 Advanced treatment 2 4 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND CHAPTER 2.2 DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The primary source of drinking water quality standards in Canada is the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality prepared by the FederalProvincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. The Guidelines address microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants. They also address concerns with physical characteristics of water, such as taste and odour. The Guidelines cover 165 microbiological, physical, chemical, and radiological contaminants in drinking water that need to be eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels to ensure the protection of human health. By no means comprehensive, this list includes items such as micro-organisms and bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum by-products and radioactive materials. A review of the stringency of the standards contained in the Guidelines is beyond the scope of this As Justice Dennis O’Connor wrote in his compelling analysis of the Walkerton water disaster, matters as important as safe drinking water and public health “should have been covered by regulations which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding.” Gastrointestinal illnesses are commonly associated with waterborne microbiological contaminants such as giardia, and symptoms surface within a few days of a person drinking unsafe water. Other serious illnesses are associated with the long-term ingestion of waterborne chemicals and other contaminants. These illnesses include some types of cancer, liver and kidney disorders, birth defects, and others. W AT E R PR OOF 2 Many of the illnesses triggered by long-term exposure to unsafe drinking water involve contaminants that are colourless, odourless and tasteless. Frequent and stringent testing is the only way to determine whether these agents are present in water, making it unsafe to drink. report, but the title Guidelines evidences the primary problem with the current approach: Canada lacks enforceable standards for drinking water quality, unlike the United States and the European Union. There is no reason why Canadians should not enjoy the same level of protection. As Justice Dennis O’Connor wrote in his compelling analysis of the Walkerton water disaster, matters as important as safe drinking water and public health “should have been covered by regulations which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding.”20 17 W A L K E R T O N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O N D R I N K I N G W AT E R Q U A L I T Y In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of drinking water quality recommendations to ensure the safety of drinking water: • In setting drinking water quality standards, the objective should be such that, if the standards are met, a reasonable and informed person would feel safe drinking the water. (Recommendation 18) • Standards setting should be based on a precautionary approach, particularly with respect to contaminants whose effects on human health are unknown. (Recommendation 19) • I suggest that the Federal-provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water focus on drinking water quality guidelines. I encourage Health Canada to commit the required scientific support to the federalprovincial process for proposing drinking water quality guidelines. (Recommendation 22) • I encourage the federal government to adopt standards that are as stringent as, or more stringent than, Ontario Regulation 459/00 for all federal facilities, Indian reserves, national parks, military installations, and other lands under federal jurisdiction in Ontario. (Recommendation 23) • The provincial government should continue to be the government responsible for setting legally binding drinking water quality standards. (Recommendation 24) 18 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND Justice O’Connor did recommend that Ontario maintain authority for setting drinking water standards. We don’t disagree with this recommendation, but note that the federal government should set minimum drinking water quality standards to protect Canadians from ineffective provincial regulations. However, there should be no impediments to provinces and territories enacting more health protective standards. FINDINGS The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality cover 165 microbiological, chemical (and physical), and radiological contaminants in drinking water that need to be eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels to ensure the protection of human health. If a pending proposal for the Yukon is adopted, the following table represents the change in the number of jurisdictions with legally binding standards for contaminants and parameters. Some jurisdictions have embraced the full suite of parameters in the Guidelines (or bettered them): Alberta; Nova Scotia; Ontario; Quebec and the Yukon (proposed). Thus there is a modest trend towards more widespread adoption of the standards in the Guidelines. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are the jurisdictions without any legally binding standards. However, as discussed immediately below, Prince Edward Island has now made sampling mandatory for microbiological, disinfectant and chemical parameters, which will indicate if non-binding guidelines are violated. Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 2 of the Appendix. J U R I S D I C T I O N S W I T H B I N D I N G S TA N D A R D S F O R :FBS .JDSPCJPMPHJDBM $IFNJDBM 3BEJPMPHJDBM 2001 10 8 6 2006 11 8 7 W AT E R PR OOF 2 19 CHAPTER 2.3 TESTING DRINKING WATER QUALITY Many parameters – such as temperature, turbidity, pressure, and flow rates – can be measured instantaneously (in “real time”). The results can be flashed from the points of measurement to The appropriate scope for routine contaminant central control points, where operators can adjust testing will likely vary from water system to water processes to maintain high quality. However, measystem. Determining the proper scope of testing suring other critically important parameters (notably those dealing with the presence of pathogens, but also including many In both Newfoundland and New Brunswick, chemical pollutants) require that samples mandatory testing is not required in be sent to laboratories for analysis. It is legislation or regulations. Though, these currently impossible to measure microbial provinces are making efforts to ensure at contamination in real time. The engineers least some level of testing. who design systems and the operators who run them must rely on the treatment process to safeguard the water. can be accomplished through conducting an initial broad suite of testing combined with an assessment FINDINGS of potential sources of contamination, both natural and human-induced, that may influence drinking Water quality standards require monitoring and water quality. enforcement through testing. The table below sets In setting the frequency of testing for individual out the trend in Canadian jurisdictions testing contaminants, the health effects of the contamirequirements for the broad classes of parameters nant, the population served, and the ability and cost established under the Guidelines. Thus, there is of testing for a particular contaminant must all be a noticeable trend toward more comprehensive taken into account. mandatory testing. Designing an adequate testing program for a water system requires addressing both the scope of contaminants tested for and the frequency of testing. 20 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND W A L K E R T O N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O N W AT E R Q U A L I T Y T E S T I N G In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of water quality testing recommendations to ensure the safety of drinking water: • All municipal water providers in Ontario should have, as a minimum, continuous inline monitoring of turbidity, disinfectant residual, and pressure at the treatment plant, together with alarms that signal immediately when any regulatory parameters are exceeded. The disinfectant residual should be continuously or frequently measured in the distribution system. Where needed, alarms should be accompanied by automatic shut-off mechanisms. (Recommendation 36) • Every municipal water provider should be responsible for developing an adequate sampling and continuous measurement plan as part of its operational plan, as recommended in Chapter 11 of this report. (Recommendation 37) • Sampling plans should provide for sampling under the conditions most challenging to the system, such as after heavy rainfalls or spring floods. (Recommendation 38) • …[S]tandard protocols for the collection, transport, custody, labeling, testing, and reporting of drinking water samples, and for testing all scheduled contaminants, that meet or better the protocols in Standard Methods. (Recommendation 39) W AT E R PR OOF 2 21 Again, these findings do not indicate testing for the full range of parameters in the Guidelines but merely that there is some required testing of standards within the broad classes. Also, in jurisdictions where testing is not mandatory, a regulator may still require testing through conditions in a system operating permit. In both Newfoundland and New Brunswick, mandatory testing is not required in legislation or regulations. Though, these provinces are making efforts to ensure at least some level of testing. In Newfoundland, government officials conduct testing. In New Brunswick, public water suppliers must have an approved sampling plan. Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 3 of the Appendix. J U R I S D I C T I O N S W I T H M A N D AT O R Y T E S T I N G F O R 22 :FBS .JDSPCJPMPHJDBM $IFNJDBM 3BEJPMPHJDBM 2001 8 6 1 2006 11 8 2 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND CHAPTER 2.4 ENSURING EFFECTIVE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS It may seem obvious to state that the purpose of FINDINGS water treatment and supply facilities is to ensure the delivery of safe, clean water. What is less In 2001, we found that 10 of the 13 provinces and obvious is that the facilities themselves can be territories regulated the construction of water health hazards. An example of this occurs when treatment systems. Today, if the Yukon’s proposed municipalities try to economize on infrastructure reforms are enacted, that number will rise to 12. costs by placing sewer pipes and drinking water New Brunswick is the lone holdout in not regulatpipes in the same trench. Under these circumstances, a broken sewer line In 2001, we found that 10 of the 13 provinces and can contaminate a drinking water territories regulated the construction of water line. Additionally, a poorly designed, treatment systems. Today, if the Yukon’s proposed constructed or maintained plant may reforms are enacted, that number will rise to 12. not in fact protect drinking water. There are two regulatory options for ensuring optimal construction and operation of water treatment and delivery systems. Regulatory bodies can adopt standards and requirements that all water suppliers must meet. Alternatively, a regulatory body could require approvals for construction and operation with specific operating conditions imposed on a case-by-case basis. W AT E R PR OOF 2 ing water treatment plant construction, but it does regulate well construction. Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 4 of the Appendix. 23 W A L K E R T O N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O N R E G U L AT O R S In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of drinking water quality recommendations to ensure the safety of drinking water: [Regulators] should require the owners of municipal water systems to obtain an owner’s licence for the operation of their waterworks. In order to obtain a licence, an owner should have: • a Certificate of Approval for the facility; • a Permit to Take Water; • approved operational plans; • an approved financial plan; and • an accredited operating agency. (Recommendation 71) 24 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND CHAPTER 2.5 ACCREDITATION OF TESTING LABORATORIES AND OPERATOR CERTIFICATION There is no question that competent water operators are an essential element of a safe drinking water system. The best-designed water treatment and delivery facility is of little benefit if the people running the system are not properly trained and/or certified. Operator certification is considered such an important issue in the United States that individual states must establish mandatory certification programs in order to be eligible for certain infrastructure grants. FINDINGS For drinking water protection, the most improvements in the past five years have been in the areas of requiring the use of accredited labs and operator certification. In 2001, eight jurisdictions required accredited labs (or tested in provincial labs or specifically accredited labs). Today, all jurisdictions meet this standard. In 2001, only three provinces – Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia – required operator certification (although several provinces had programs in development). Today, if proposals in the Yukon are adopted, nine jurisdictions will have operator certification programs. The holdouts: Newfoundland; New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Training and certification are, strictly speaking, separate issues. Certification is generally accomplished through a regulatory body that considers experience, education and examination. Certification should also ensure the maintenance of skills and the acquisition of new knowledge in the field. Training requirements, not compared in this report, should take into account an employee’s duties, experience and education. Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 5 of the Appendix. R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R L A B A C C R E D I TAT I O N A N D O P E R AT O R C E R T I F I C AT O N P R O V I N C E S A N D T E R R I T O R I E S :FBS JODMVEJOH QSPQPTFE Lab accreditation 8 13 Operator certification 3 9 W AT E R PR OOF 2 25 WALKERTON RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACCREDITATION AND CERTIFICATION In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of recommendations related to accreditation of testing laboratories and certification of water system operators: • The provincial government should phase-in the mandatory accreditation of laboratories for all testing parameters, and all drinking water testing should be performed only by accredited facilities. (Recommendation 41) • The Ministry of Environment should licence and periodically inspect as required, environmental laboratories that offer drinking water testing; as with water treatment operations, continuing accreditation should be a condition of licence. (Recommendation 42) • The Ministry of the Environment should continue to require the mandatory certification of persons who perform operational work in water treatment and distribution facilities. Education, examination, and experience are essential components of ensuring competence. (Recommendation 59) • The Ministry of Environment should require water system operators who currently hold certificates obtained through the grandparenting process to become certified through examination within two years, and it should require operators to be recertified periodically. (Recommendation 60) • The Ministry of the Environment should require all applicants for an operator’s licence at the entry level to complete a training course that has a specific curriculum to ensure a basic minimum knowledge of principles in relevant subject areas. (Recommendation 61) • The Ministry of the Environment should develop a comprehensive training curriculum for operators… (Recommendation 62) • …[M]andatory certification of persons who perform operational work in water treatment and distribution facilities…all applicants for an operator’s licence at the entry level [should] complete a training course that has a specific curriculum to ensure a basic minimum knowledge of principles in relevant subject areas. (Recommendation 59 and 61) 26 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND CHAPTER 2.6 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Prompt reporting of water testing results can go a long way toward alleviating the consequences of a waterborne disease outbreak. the incident if warranted, and is required to give reasons if it concludes an investigation is not warranted. New Brunswick is unusual in having something The need to report goes beyond informing consumthat could be described as a ‘no-right-to-know’ ers of immediate health threats. It is also important provision. Under Section 6 of the New Brunswick that consumers be informed of the overall quality Potable Water Regulation, health and environment of their drinking water. Both the U.S. and European officials are specifically prohibited from disclosing Union require water suppliers to provide “right-toknow” reports, which summarize water quality testing results and compare the Our research in 2001 found only two jurisdictions quality of their water with the relevant (Ontario and Newfoundland) that were routinely standards. In the U.S., these reports providing water quality information. Today, eight are required annually, while in the jurisdictions provide some measure of public European Union, such reports must be reporting. delivered every three years. Public reporting is a means to improve accountability. Ontario has gone a step further. Under the new Drinking Water Compliance and Enforcement Regulation the public now has the right to request an investigation of alleged violations of the drinking water provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which fulfills recommendation 76 of the Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. When a member of the public files a request, the Ministry of Environment is required investigate W AT E R PR OOF 2 the results of a sample of well water to anyone but the well owner, unless the owner consents. This could be particularly problematic in situations where the public has access to a private well, such as at a gas station or campground. 27 W A L K E R T O N R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O N T R A N S P A R E N C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y In 2002, the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry made a number of recommendations related to transparency and public accountability: • [T]he federal-provincial process for proposing drinking water quality guidelines be refined to provide for greater transparency and public participation. (Recommendation 21) • The results of laboratory accreditation audits should be provided to the Ministry of the Environment and should be publicly available. (Recommendation 43) • The Ministry of the Environment should initiate a process whereby the public can require the Investigations and Enforcement Branch to investigate alleged violations of drinking water provisions. (Recommendation 76) • The Ministry should create an Integrated Divisional System which provides central electronic access to information relevant to each drinking water system, trend analyses, water quality, and systems data. (Recommendation 79, bullet 3) • The Drinking Water Branch should prepare an annual “State of Ontario’s Drinking Water Report,” which should be tabled in the Legislature. (Recommendation 80) 28 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND Public reporting is a means to the end of public accountability. On that measure, Ontario again has set itself apart with the provision of a legal right to request a drinking water investigation. FINDINGS Another area where positive trends are seen is in the willingness of provinces and territories to provide at least some public reporting of information related to drinking water quality, such as publicizing adverse water quality results. Much more should or must be done. The following table presents legal requirements for provision of right to know reports, mandatory boil water notification procedures and provincial government efforts to ensure online reporting of testing results. In 2001, only Ontario required “right to know” reports and only four provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan) had mandatory notification procedures for boil water alerts. Online reporting was not evaluated in 2001. Today, five provinces or territories require reporting to populations served by water providers, five have mandatory criteria for boil water alerts. Eight provinces or territories are providing online reporting of some water quality information (and in jurisdictions without wider reporting, many municipalities report individually). Our research in 2001 found only two jurisdictions (Ontario and Newfoundland) that were routinely providing water quality information. Newfoundland’s disclosure was limited to the online reporting of testing related to disinfectant by-products. Today, eight jurisdictions provide some measure of public reporting. Reporting between provinces is not equal. In our view, Ontario is the current leader in Canada with its binding requirement for quarterly “right to know” reports and online reporting. Saskatchewan’s online reporting is also commendable. Detailed information for each jurisdiction is found in Table 6 of the Appendix. T R A N S P A R E N C Y A N D P U B L I C A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES :FBS JODMVEJOH QSPQPTFE Right to Know reports 1 5 Mandatory warnings/boil alerts for problem water 4 5 Some online reporting of water quality testing Not examined 8 W AT E R PR OOF 2 29 CHAPTER 3 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILURES When issues of unsafe drinking water generate public concern the response of the federal government is predictable: drinking water protection is a provincial matter. This is somewhat true. It’s also very evasive. government also has responsibility for regulating food and drug safety – including bottled water – and is positioned to play a lead role in the tracking of trends, best practices and to influence provincial governments through infrastructure funding. In Canada, various levels of government share the responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water. Last year the Commissioner of Sustainable Development – part of the Office of the Auditor General – evaluated the federal government’s performance. Fallout from the scathThe federal government’s lack of leadership in ing report continues. protecting drinking water quality has resulted in The report evaluated the federal troubling information gaps such as the lack of a government’s poor performance comprehensive registry of drinking water threats, ensuring safe drinking water trends and indicators. for First Nations communities. Three-quarters of First Nations communities face a “significant risk Municipal governments are commonly the direct to the quality or the safety of drinking water.”22 provider of drinking water. The provincial and The failures were not simply funding shortfalls. As territorial governments have the main legislative the Commissioner noted the problems occurred responsibility for regulating the provision of safe “despite the hundreds of millions in federal funds drinking water. invested.”23 But the federal government has direct regulatory The lead finding of the Commissioner states: responsibility in First Nations communities, on When it comes to the safety of drinking water, military bases, national parks, and federal facilities. residents of First Nations communities do not Federal government responsibility also extends to benefit from a level of protection comparable to that transportation conveyances (e.g., trains, planes and of people who live off reserves. This is partly because ships) traveling outside a province.21 The federal 30 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND I'l'l :0 there are no laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in First Nations communities, unlike other communities.24 The embarrassment of the Commissioner’s report prompted the government to announce “immediate action” on the issue. Plans include the enactment of protocols, operator training and an extensive consultation process to how to address regulatory gaps.25 (But see Unmet Responsibilities at page 35). The federal government is also directly responsible for regulating the quality of bottled water. Despite the warnings of its own Health Canada scientists, the government has given in to industry pressure for self-regulation (see the next section Is Bottled Water the Answer?). 32 The Federal Government also regulates pesticides, a source of drinking water contamination.26 The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality currently cover 30 pesticides registered in Canada, but this lags far behind the registration and use of new pesticides. Similarly, the government regulates and tracks potentially harmful pollutant releases, but its tracking of 300 chemicals misses thousands of other chemicals in use and industrial chemical users are allowed the luxury of self-reporting. Canada’s hands-off pollution tracking was thrust into the international spotlight earlier this year. A report of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation highlighted strange inconsistencies, which seemed to point to unchecked underreporting in Canada regarding cement kilns.27 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND Regarding the federal government’s work with the provinces to establish the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality the Commissioner criticized the slowness in developing and reviewing standards to protect public health. The Committee took seven years to review the guideline for Escherichia coli (E. coli) and after eight years on the Committee’s agenda, the guideline for arsenic is only at the public consultation stage.28 Climate change is expected to alter precipitation patterns all across Canada, resulting in declining lake levels in Ontario and Quebec, including the Great Lakes, inland lakes and the St. Lawrence River as more moisture evaporates due to warmer temperatures and less ice cover. In Western Canada, global warming means more frequent and more severe droughts in the prairies,33 and wetter winters and drier summers on the West Coast. As water needs outstrip supply,34 events such as the water crisis and forced shutdown of the west coast resort town of Tofino over Labour Day 2006 may become routine. Despite these potential disruptions, the federal government is failing to take any meaningful action to prevent or adapt to climate change. The federal government’s lack of leadership in protecting drinking water quality has resulted in troubling information gaps such as the lack of a comprehensive registry of drinking water threats, trends and indicators – such as boil water alerts. The federal government has acknowledged the importance of creating a centralized registry of provincial data on boil Climate change is expected to alter precipitation water alerts but it has not assumed the patterns all across Canada. Despite these potential responsibility.29 disruptions, the federal government is failing to take any meaningful action to prevent or adapt to climate Canada’s National Water Policy Institute has warned of the threat from climate change. 30 change to Canada’s water supply, which the current federal government is studiously ignoring. Crucial to public health are Perhaps most disappointingly, Canada is working safe drinking water, sufficient food, secure shelter, hard in the international arena to oppose the and good social conditions. A changing climate recognition of the human right to safe water. has the potential to profoundly affect all of these International agreement on this critical right would things, particularly drinking water.31 More variable tackle the problems of illness or death arising from precipitation patterns are likely to compromise the unsafe drinking water. As a member of the UN supply of freshwater, increasing risks of waterborne Human Rights Commission, Canada has repeatedly disease.32 opposed even the consideration of a human right to water. In one case it was the lone country voting against a resolution regarding the right to water.35 W AT E R PR OOF 2 33 .. .urpl. iv. .. .?marl r. . . . .Z. .511: .., Tit-w .. rm0>r UNMET RESPONSIBILITIES – KASHECHEWAN Late last year the remote northern Ontario community of Kashechewan made national headlines. Unsafe drinking water was threatening the entire community. In early November 2005, the government of Ontario evacuated 60 per cent of the people in the Kashechewan First Nation because they required immediate medical care due to an outbreak of E. coli. Tests discovered the bacteria in the water supply systems on October 18. However, the provincial government waited seven days before agreeing to transfer some 800 affected members of the this Cree First Nation to nearby communities. Meanwhile, the federal Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) denied the need for evacuation. Kashechewan had been under a boil water advisory for two years. In the six months preceding the evacuation $250,000 was spent on bottled water. Why weren’t these early warning signals recognized and acted upon? Only after extensive media coverage did the federal government promise to fund the construction of a new water treatment facility for the Cree community. To date, however, the temporary portable water filtration system has not been replaced with permanent water purification infrastructure. Kashechewan is just one of 62 communities identified by the Ontario Clean Water Agency as having severe water problems. In 2003, a report by the same agency described the situation in Kashechewan as “a Walkerton-in-waiting.”36 According to the 2005 Auditor General Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Report, the government policy “to ensure that people living on reserves attain a comparable level of health and have access to water facilities comparable with other Canadians living in communities of similar size and location,” has not been met. As long as there are no binding laws in place, there is no legal incentive for the federal government to pursue this policy and uphold its responsibility to maintain adequate drinking water standards on reserves. W AT E R PR OOF 2 35 CHAPTER 4 IS BOTTLED WATER THE ANSWER? Canada’s drinking water regulations may drive you to reach for the bottle – bottled water that is. What was once a small luxury item has become a staple. Over the last decade, sales of bottled water have increased dramatically to become an estimated $100 billion (U.S.) industry, with 40 billion litres now consumed internationally.37 In 2003, Canada produced 1.5 billion litres of bottled water (much of are quick to exploit this misperception, but various studies indicate that bottled water regulations are in fact inadequate to ensure purity or safety. In the landmark study Pure Drink or Pure Hype, the U.S. environmental group Natural Resources Defence Council tested more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water. While most of the tested waters were found to be of high quality, about onethird of the waters tested contained levels of contamination. These conBottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more taminants included synthetic organic than tap water. At as much as $2.50 per litre chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic. At ($10 per gallon), bottled water costs more than least one sample exceeded allowable gasoline. When asked why they’re willing to pay limits of legal standards or industry so much for bottled water, consumers often cite guidelines. concerns about the safety of tap water. The NRDC found that bottled water regulations are inadequate to assure it exported) and Canadians consumed 47 litres per consumers of either purity or safety, although person. But are they getting their money’s worth? bottled water is regulated at both the state and federal level in the U.S. Bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more than tap water. At as much as $2.50 per litre ($10 In 2000, a survey of bottled drinking water in per gallon), bottled water costs more than gasoline. Manitoba discovered that some samples exceeded This is in addition to the many indirect costs of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality delivering water in bottles discussed below. for total dissolved solids, chloride and lead, and also discovered inconsistent and inaccurate labelling of When asked why they’re willing to pay so much for products.38 The World Health Organization warns bottled water, consumers often cite concerns about the safety of tap water. Bottled water companies 36 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND ?37 that bottled water can actually have a greater bacterial count than municipal water.39 members of the association that developed the code according to Polaris. The federal government has outlined regulations for bottled water in the Food and Drug Act. These standards are to be enforced by Health Canada. The Act, however, does not specify the frequency or comprehensiveness of testing, and tests only for coliform counts. Information is not available to the public, and the companies themselves are not required to perform regular, comprehensive tests of product quality. As with municipal water sources, when it comes to bottled water, voluntary self-regulation is no substitute for government oversight. The federal government has left bottled water quality primarily to industry self-regulation, a decision strongly criticized by its own scientists. Health Canada scientist Dr. Donald Warburton studied bottled water quality and concluded that Health Canada should develop “an improved surveillance system for the bottled water industry” largely because the research showed that the bottled water companies and products studied revealed “poor manufacturing practices.” Beyond the quality of the water itself, storage of bottled water raises health concerns. Water bottles are most commonly made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Storage of water in PET bottles will result in the migration of chemicals into the water. A common concern cited is the presence of bisphenol A, which may mimic hormones. The plastics industry has long claimed that bisphenol A is safe at typical levels of human exposure. Other studies draw a very different conclusion. Eleven industry-funded studies found no risk from bisphenol A, while 90 per cent of 104 independent studies showed possible risks.40 In 2006, German researchers studying water bottled in Canada concluded that newly purchased water in PET bottles contained up to 375 parts per trillion of antimony. After three months, the water in PET bottles At your local convenience store, bottled water can contained up to 626 parts per trillion cost up to $2.50 a litre. Given recommendations antimony.41 to drink eight, eight ounce glasses of water, a Antimony and many of its family of four would spend nearly $20 a day or compounds are toxic. Clinically, $7,300 per year to meet their recommended water antimony poisoning is very similar consumption. to arsenic poisoning.42 Although the levels found in the German study are below the limitation found in Canadian The Polaris Institute, which published Inside the guidelines, many people are concerned about lower Bottle in 2005, notes that government inspections level exposures to chemicals. In addition, the PET of bottled water plants in Canada are being scaled manufacturing process releases harmful chemical back – from once every three years to once every emissions that compromise air quality. four or five years. An industry “model code” exists, but it is only voluntary and not enforceable. Water Other than health, taste is another rationale for the quality testing does not have to be performed by bottled water choice. Many blind taste tests, howgovernment-approved labs, and results are not ever, suggest that tap water and bottled water are made available for closer public or independent indistinguishable. Consumer reporter Jon Stossel, scrutiny. The industry code doesn’t even apply to who addressed bottled water in his book Myths, Lies all bottlers. Coca-Cola and Pepsi, vendors of bottled and Downright Stupidity, says: “Bottom line, if you water brands such as Dasani and Aquafina, are not buy bottled water because you think it’s healthier 38 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND than tap, test after test shows no evidence of that. And if you buy fancy brands because you think they taste better, you’re probably just buying the hype.”43 though water of an identical chemical composition could be obtained from a well a safe distance from the spring.44 Given the growth rates of the bottled water industry, it is not surprising that extracting ever-increasing volumes of water is raising environmental concerns. Water withdrawals by the bottled water industry (or any industry) can interfere with existing water users and diminish streamflows to the point of drying up streams. The growing thirst for bottled water also generates a mountain of garbage. While most water bottles are recyclable, the Polaris Institute notes that estimates for water bottle recycling in Canada are as low as 10 per cent.45 According to the Container Recycling Institute, 86 per cent of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter – 3 million a day in California alone.46 Even the marketing considerations for bottled water are exacerbating environmental impacts. Among bottled water, “spring” water commands the greatest price. This promotes water extraction in places likely to have high environmental impacts. There have been instances where multinational water bottling operations have devastated the flows of many springs supporting critical wildlife areas even W AT E R PR OOF 2 Transporting water around the globe involves burning massive quantities of fossil fuels and thus emitting greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere. This contrasts starkly with tap water, which is distributed through an energy efficient infrastructure. 39 W A T E R F I G H T : T O R O N T O T A P V. B O T T L E D W A T E R Below is a side-by-side comparison of the federal regulation of bottled water under the 'PPE BOE %SVH "DU and Ontario’s regulation of Greater Toronto’s water under the 4BGF %SJOLJOH 8BUFS "DU. The Canadian Bottled Water Association touts the stringency of federal regulations, claiming: #PUUMFE XBUFS JT FYUFOTJWFMZ SFHVMBUFE BT B GPPE QSPEVDU CZ GFEFSBM QSPWJODJBM BOE BTTPDJBUJPO TUBOEBSET 5BQ XBUFS CZ DPOUSBTU JT POMZ SFHVMBUFE BT B VUJMJUZ CZ UIF QSPWJODFT "MUIPVHI UIF GFEFSBM HPWFSONFOU FTUBCMJTIFE UIF $BOBEJBO %SJOLJOH 8BUFS (VJEFMJOFT UIFZ IBWF POMZ CFFO MFHJTMBUFE JO TFWFSBM QSPWJODFT BOE SFNBJO MFHBMMZ VOFOGPSDFBCMF FMTFXIFSF #Z DPOUSBTU CPUUMFE XBUFS SFHVMBUJPOT BSF MFHBMMZ FOGPSDFBCMF UISPVHIPVU $BOBEB Our analysis is that Toronto’s drinking water is subject to far more stringent analysis than bottled water. $POUBNJOBOU TUBOEBSET Bottled water Toronto tap #BDUFSJPMPHJDBM UFTUJOH GSFRVFODZ NPOUIMZ JODMVEJOH EJTUSJCVUJPO TZTUFN 1 (mineral and spring water)48 Not specified 3 (other water)49 160 660 (approx.) (100 samples, plus one additional distribution sample for every 10,000 people served by the system; additional test on 25 per cent of those samples)50 1VCMJDMZ BWBJMBCMF UFTUJOH SFTVMUT No Yes Moreover, Toronto exceeds the statutory minimums in guaranteeing safe water. The City conducts approximately 70,000 bacteriological tests every year and it tests for over 300 potential chemical contaminants, even though tests are only required for 78 chemical contaminants under Ontario’s legislation.51 40 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND The rush toward bottled water has important implications for our municipal sources and social equity. As more and more well-off Canadians turn to bottled water, governments will feel less pressure to protect municipal sources. Given the cost of bottled water, those at the lower end of the economic scale will have no choice but to drink tap water of potentially diminishing quality. Finally, given water’s status as a public resource, one must question the equity of a multi-billion dollar industry that pays nothing or next to nothing for the product it sells. In 2004, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment calculated that it has already W AT E R PR OOF 2 given bottled water companies permits that allow an estimated 1,800 billion litres a year to be pumped out of underground aquifers free of charge.47 If you have concerns about your municipal tap water or a personal preference for drinking bottled water, a far cheaper and environmentally friendly alternative is home filtration. Home filtration is far more convenient, produces higher quality water, and costs a fraction of the amount of bottled water. Most importantly, we must remain vigilant in demanding the protection and proper treatment of our water sources. 41 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS From 2001 to 2006, we note several areas of improvement, particularly in the areas of operator certification and developing public transparency. There is little question that today the regulation of drinking water safety at the provincial and territorial level is better than in 2001. tions resulted from one of the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched considerations of the legislative reforms necessary to ensure Canadians’ health. Implementing these recommendations (as appropriate in each jurisdiction) would dramatically increase drinking water safety in Canada. Our findings show that there are still far too many provinces and territories that have significant shortcomings in drinking water protection. No province or territory Our findings show that there are still far too many may lay claim to providing all of the provinces and territories that have significant protections identified by the Walkershortcomings in drinking water protection. No ton Commission of Inquiry. province or territory may lay claim to providing It can also be said that a number of all of the protections identified by the Walkerton jurisdictions have made significant Commission of Inquiry. improvements in drinking water protection. Many examples are Efforts to improve drinking water protection should notable, but two stand out in our view: Ontario’s be recognized and applauded. But another question establishment in June 2005 of the public right to remains: are provinces and territories taking strong request a drinking water investigation over water enough action to protect public health? quality concerns and Saskatchewan’s efforts in providing water quality information online, includIn 2002, Justice O’Connor issued his Part Two ing the timely provision of water testing results. It Report of the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry, is probably not coincidental that these jurisdictions which endorsed the multi-barrier approach and have had the misfortune of suffering high profile presented 93 recommendations for improving the water contamination problems. protection of drinking water. These recommenda- 42 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND [Iii - {11. ?i?rllt Am In those jurisdictions lucky enough to have (so far) escaped high-profile water system failures, there is an observable tendency for those governments to prioritize the resistance of water providers to meet higher standards over the need to protect Canadians’ health. Some water systems, especially smaller systems, may not have the means to upgrade aging or insufficient water treatment systems or to invest in operator training and education. Provincial governments – knowing that increasing standards will require additional personnel for compliance and enforcement activities and increased budgets to assist cash-strapped communities – opt for small improvements and an over-reliance on voluntary guidelines or highly discretionary laws that often provide no minimum standards. 44 A similar parallel exists between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government promulgates guidelines, but avoids setting binding standards as those would likely trigger provincial demands for funding and assistance. The federal government wishes, but does not require, that provinces do better. Whether or not a voluntary, discretionary approach to drinking water regulation could ever be appropriate or effective, this approach is destined to fail in an environment of inadequate staffing for inspections, secrecy and a continued government refusal to intervene with activities threatening water quality. We would argue that a voluntary approach will always underperform. S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND Local, provincial and federal governments should all be working cooperatively to provide safe drinking water. Within the Canadian system, each level of government has a role to play and responsibilities to meet. Currently, however, we have a “top-down” failure of responsibilities, by which we mean that the federal government avoids its role to adequately protect drinking water where it has direct responsibility (e.g., First Nations communities and bottled water). The federal government also fails to set high standards for drinking water quality and is deficient in providing adequate financial, technical and enforcement assistance. Were our evaluation to include source water protection, provincial and territorial performance would be much worse. Canada has more than 3 million lakes, 7 per cent of the world’s renewable freshwater (20 per cent of total freshwater) and ranks fourth in the world in the freshwater availability per capita. That our governments will not adequately ensure drinking water safety by protecting a small fraction of the public resources evidences the extent to which shortsighted private interests dominate the government decision making process. (Sierra Legal’s preparation of a report focusing solely on source water protection is underway.) A hopeful observation is that there is at least one, Provinces, left with unfettered discretion, weigh and sometimes several, provinces where each of the imperatives of public health protection against increased costs and commitments and too often arrive at troublingly low Provinces, left with unfettered discretion, weigh standards. the imperatives of public health protection against increased costs and commitments and too often A number of provincial jurisdictions arrive at troublingly low standards. have or are currently engaged in public processes that have been billed as addressing the deficiencies in drinking water regulation. While these processes may be taken as an acknowledgement of the probthe individual aspects of drinking water protection lems we face, some processes have not provided is done well. Putting the best examples from across a solution and do not appear poised to do so. Canada together in one system would provide Unfortunately, in some cases, publicly announced world-class drinking water protection. Without feddrinking water reform processes have more to do eral leadership however, this will not be achieved, with managing public perceptions than ensuring and some Canadians will face significantly higher safe drinking water. risks from drinking water due simply to where they live. W AT E R PR OOF 2 45 #0 rm0>r R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 1SPWJODJBM BOE 5FSSJUPSJBM (PWFSONFOUT 'FEFSBM (PWFSONFOU 1. Commit to reviewing and implementing the recommendations of the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry (as appropriate to each jurisdiction). 1. Enact binding minimum drinking water quality standards, applicable in cases where a provincial or territorial government has not enacted standards sufficient to protect public health. 2. Require disinfection for all water supplies, and provinces and territories should move towards disinfection methods other than chlorine where possible. 3. Require filtration for surface water supplies and groundwater supplies subject to the influence of surface waters. 4. Require testing, at appropriate frequencies, for all contaminants listed in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Exemptions from testing for certain contaminants should be granted only where there is a history of clean tests and there are no ongoing human activities that could affect drinking water quality. 5. Require that adequately trained and certified personnel operate drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. 6. Require the preparation of plans to deal with water quality emergencies and require water suppliers to keep back-up treatment parts on hand where appropriate. 7. Require that water suppliers report test results along with missed sampling and equipment failures to provincial or territorial agencies. 8. Require that water suppliers make system approvals and testing results readily available to the public, including presentation online. Water suppliers should prepare right-to-know reports for the populations served on a periodic basis. 9. Develop programs for random sampling and inspection, with clear follow-up actions required in cases of non-compliance. W AT E R PR OOF 2 2. Ensure adequate regulation of bottled water including strengthening of contaminant standard testing frequency and comprehensiveness. 3. Address the long neglected issue of poor water quality in First Nations communities. 4. Create and maintain a publicly available database of water quality information, trends and best practices, with a priority for establishing a national registry of boil water alert data. 5. Enact binding standards or approval processes for materials used in drinking water treatment and distribution. 6. Evaluate and approve drinking water testing and treatment methods. 7. Make funding for the construction and renewal of water treatment and delivery infrastructure contingent on meeting water protection requirements. 8. Improve the evaluation and regulation of chemicals and pesticides, including completing the long awaited back reviews of understudied chemicals and pesticides already in use. 9. Strengthen water quality standards and testing requirements for bottled water and increase inspections of bottled water plants. All testing and inspection reports should be publicly available. 10. Recognize that all Canadians enjoy a basic human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy environment (as Quebec has acknowledged).52 47 N AT I O N A L D R I N K I N G W AT E R R E P O R T C A R D – G R A D E S +VSJTEJDUJPO $PNNFOUT TPVSDF QSPUFDUJPO DPNNFOUT OPU JODMVEFE Alberta GOOD: treatment standards; contaminant standards; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. NE E DS IM PROVE M E NT: testing. LACKING: public reporting. B B British Columbia GOOD: accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: treatment standards; contaminant standards; testing; public reporting. D C+ Manitoba GOOD: accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification; public reporting (planned). NE E DS IM PROVE M E NT: treatment standards; contaminant standards; testing. C- C+ Newfoundland GOOD: testing; government tests water quality; public reporting. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: treatment standards; contaminant standards. LACKING: operator certification. D C- New Brunswick GOOD: accredited labs for water quality testing. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: treatment standards; testing. LACKING: contaminant standards; water treatment system design regulation; operator certification; public reporting. C- D NW Territories GOOD: contaminant standards; testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; public reporting. NE E DS IM PROVE M E NT: treatment standards. LACKING: operator certification. C C+ Nova Scotia GOOD: treatment standards; contaminant standards; testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. LACKING: public reporting. B- B Nunavut GOOD: contaminant standards; accredited labs for water quality testing. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: treatment standards; testing. LACKING: operator certification; public reporting. C C Ontario GOOD: treatment standards; contaminant standards; testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification; public reporting. B A- PEI GOOD: testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. NEEDS IM PROVE M E NT: public reporting (but plans in works). LACKING: treatment standards; contaminant standards. F C- Quebec GOOD: treatment standards; contaminant standards; testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. NE E DS IMPROVEMENT: public reporting (reports at the regional level only). B B+ Saskatchewan GOOD: accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification; public reporting. NEEDS IM PROVE M E NT: treatment standards contaminant standards; testing. C B- Yukon† GOOD: contaminant standards; testing; accredited labs for water quality testing; operator certification. NE E DS IM PROVE M E NT: treatment standards LACKING: public reporting. D- C-† † Federal Government NEEDS IMPROVEMENT: evaluation and regulation of chemicals; formulation of standards for guidelines. LACKING: First Nations drinking water safety; binding minimum drinking water standards; recognition of a right to clean drinking water; tracking national drinking water data, trends and best practices. Not graded F Note: †Based on detailed proposed legislation. ††Will be higher if reforms are implemented. 48 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND APPENDIX: JURISDICTION COMPARISONS TA B L E 1 : W AT E R T R E AT M E N T R E Q U I R E M E N T S +VSJTEJDUJPO 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Disinfection is required for both groundwater and surface water. Chemically-assisted filtration or slow-sand filtration is required for surface water. The province regulates treatment techniques. Disinfection is required for both groundwater and surface water. Chemically-assisted filtration or slow-sand filtration is required for surface water. Treatment must achieve specified reductions in pathogens.53 Disinfection (chlorination or other approved disinfection) is required. Disinfection of surface water is required. Ground water disinfection is discretionary.54 Chlorination is required. Current: Chlorination is required. Proposed: Regulations are currently being drafted under the %SJOLJOH 8BUFS 4BGFUZ "DU.55 There is no mandatory treatment requirement. Continuous disinfection is mandatory for all public water supply systems.56 There are no mandatory requirements for treatment, although treatment may be required through the approval process for individual municipal water systems. Chlorination is required. Other treatment may be required through the approval process for individual municipal water systems.57 Chlorination is required. Chlorination (or other approved disinfection) for surface water is required, while ground water may require chlorination (or other approved disinfection) if the water may be subject to contamination.58 Chlorination is required. Filtration and disinfection are both required for surface water and disinfection is required for groundwater. Minimum standards are set for both.59 Chlorination is required. Chlorination (or other approved disinfection) for surface water is required, while ground water may require chlorination (or other approved disinfection) if the water could be subject to contamination.60 Groundwater must be chlorinated. Surface water must be chlorinated and subjected to chemically assisted filtration. Surface water and groundwater must meet the primary disinfection standards of Procedure for Disinfection of Drinking Water in Ontario. Treatment must achieve specified reductions in pathogens.61 No treatment required. No treatment required. Treatment may be imposed on a case-by-case basis depending. Utilities that do not chlorinate must meet a heightened sampling requirement.62 There are no specific treatment requirements, but water quality must meet specified parameters (there are currently 46 parameters and there is a proposal to increase that number to 77). Surface water and ground water under surface water influence must undergo a continuous filtration and disinfection treatment. Treatment must achieve specified reductions in pathogens.63 New legislation Effectively no change Chlorination is required. Chlorination (or other approved disinfection) is required.64 Yukon No treatment required. Current: No treatment required. Proposed: Surface water requires filtration and disinfection. Groundwater requires disinfection.65 Alberta British Columbia New legislation, but no improvements Manitoba No change but revisions in process Newfoundland Improvement, but still not rigorous New Brunswick Chlorination required, but lags behind standards in some provinces NW Territories No change Nova Scotia Significant improvement Nunavut No new legislation Ontario New legislation Standards strengthened PEI No legal change but new incentive for better treatment Quebec No new legislation Saskatchewan W AT E R PR OOF 2 49 TA B L E 2 : D R I N K I N G W AT E R Q U A L I T Y S TA N D A R D S +VSJTEJDUJPO Alberta British Columbia No change Manitoba No change but revisions in process Newfoundland No change New Brunswick No change NW Territories No change Nova Scotia No change Nunavut No change Ontario PEI No change Quebec Saskatchewan Improved Yukon 50 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Water quality must meet the microbiological, Water quality must meet the microbiological, chemical and radiological characteristics chemical and radiological characteristics in the in the Canadian Guidelines. Alberta has Canadian Guidelines.66 additional standards for viruses and protozoa. Water quality must meet a coliform standard. Other standards may be imposed on a caseby-case basis. Water quality must meet a coliform standard. Other standards may be imposed on a case-bycase basis. Canadian Guidelines have not been adopted.67 Water quality subjected to bacteriological analysis, but strict limits not set. Water quality must meet a microbiological standard. Canadian Guidelines have not been adopted. Proposed: The Lieutenant Governor in Council has the discretion to make regulations specifying drinking water quality standards.68 The Canadian Guidelines are adopted as binding for bacteriological standards. The Guidelines are non-binding objectives for chemical and physical monitoring standards. The Canadian Guidelines are adopted as binding for bacteriological standards. The Guidelines are non-binding objectives for chemical and physical monitoring standards.69 Water quality standards are discretionary. Water quality standards are discretionary. Microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics are addressed in legislation. Microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics are addressed in legislation.70 Water providers have an obligation to provide water that meets the microbiological, chemical and physical contaminant standards of the Canadian Guidelines. Microbiological, physical, and chemical characteristics of a public drinking water supply must not exceed the maximum acceptable concentration for substances listed in the Canadian Guidelines.71 Microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics are addressed in legislation. Microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics are addressed in legislation.72 Microbiological, chemical, and radiological standards equal or surpass the Canadian Guidelines. Microbiological, chemical, and radiological standards equal or surpass the Canadian Guidelines. There are also standards to ensure the effectiveness of water treatment.73 No binding standards. No binding standards but testing is now required for microbiological and chemical analysis, which allows comparison with Canadian Guidelines.74 Water providers are legally obligated to provide water that meets Quebec’s contaminant standards. (Proposed legislation will raise the number of contaminant standards to 77 and implement mandatory controls for turbidity, trihalomethanes and E. coli.) Parameters for microbiological, inorganic, organic, and radioactive substances are mandated as well as turbidity levels in the distribution system.75 Saskatchewan has created Municipal Drinking Water Quality Objectives, but these are not binding unless an approval or operating permit specifies. Bacteriological, chemical, radiological, and pesticide standards are mandated. Turbidity standards are mandated based on source water and treatment types.76 Standards related to coliforms, chlorine residual and some physical characteristics. Current: Standards related to coliforms, chlorine residual and some physical characteristics. Proposed: Public drinking water systems must meet the criteria set forth in the Canadian Guidelines.77 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND TA B L E 3 : W AT E R Q U A L I T Y T E S T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S +VSJTEJDUJPO Alberta Improved 'JOEJOHT The director of Alberta Environment determines the parameters that must be analyzed for each municipality. Surface waters are monitored twice per year and groundwater monitored once per year. The frequency of testing varies by type of contaminant and the population served. Microbiological sampling and testing for chlorine residuals, turbidity and fluoride are required. Testing for chemical and physical standards also required.78 The frequency of sampling is discretionary. Testing for coliforms is mandatory. All other testing is discretionary. The frequency of sampling is discretionary. Frequency of sampling varies according to the population served.79 Testing for chlorine residuals and microbiological sampling is required and the frequency is mandated; all other testing is discretionary. Current: Testing for chlorine residuals and microbiological sampling is required and the frequency is mandated; all other testing is discretionary. Proposed: Sampling will be mandated. Testing will be required for bacteriological contaminants and other analyses to be prescribed in the regulations.80 No testing required. The provincial government may undertake some testing. Testing by water system operators is not required. Instead, the provincial government has an established sampling program. There are no provincial legislative requirements relating to sampling frequency. Government states that it samples based on the Canadian Guidelines.81 British Columbia New legislation, but little effective improvement Manitoba No change but revisions in process Newfoundland No change New Brunswick No change NW Territories No new legislation Nova Scotia New legislation Nunavut No new legislation 'JOEJOHT Water sampling frequency is discretionary. Sampling frequency and scope are discretionary. Public water suppliers must have an approved Public water suppliers must have an approved sampling plan. sampling plan.82 The Chief Medical Health Officer determines Operators are required to ensure tests are the manner and frequency of sampling performed monthly for coliforms and annually for bacteriological, physical, and chemical for 25 chemical and physical parameters. characteristics. The Department of Health and Social Services issues water sampling protocols.83 Disinfection residual testing, turbidity sampling and fluoride level sampling (if used) is required daily. Microbiological sampling must meet Canadian Guidelines (population based). Thirty chemical and physical parameters must be sampled, once a year for surface water, and once every two years for groundwater. Monitoring of bacteriological, physical, and chemical parameters is required. Monitoring of turbidity, disinfection residuals, and fluoride levels is also required.84 The Chief Medical Health Officer determines Operators are required to ensure tests are the manner and frequency of sampling performed monthly for coliforms and annually for bacteriological, physical, and chemical for 25 chemical and physical parameters. characteristics. The Department of Health and Social Services issues water sampling protocols.85 DPOUJOVFE PO OFYU QBHF W AT E R PR OOF 2 51 Water quality testing requirements DPOUJOVFE +VSJTEJDUJPO Ontario New regulations enhance already strong requirements 'JOEJOHT Ontario’s new Drinking Water Protection Regulation, then pending, set out new testing requirements. Binding testing requirements will be in effect (except in the case of small systems, for example, serving less than five residences) for microbiological characteristics, chlorine residuals, volatile organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, nitrates, and pesticides. Radiological contaminant testing is not mandatory, but may be required on a case-by-case basis. The frequency of testing varies by type of contaminant and the population served by the water system, but the frequency of testing is rigorous compared to other Canadian jurisdictions. Sampling is required and the frequency is mandated. Testing varies by contaminant and the population served. Testing requirements are rigorous compared to most provinces and territories.86 Sampling not required. Frequency of sampling is mandated. Sampling for chlorine, coliform bacteria, and E. coli is done on at least a quarterly basis each year and a general chemical analysis is done at least once each year. Sampling frequency follows the recommendations of the World Health Organization and Health Canada.87 There is mandatory testing for 46 contaminant standards. The frequency of testing varies by type of contaminant and the population served by the water systems. There is mandatory testing for bacteriological, physical, and chemical characteristics, including trihalomethanes, organic substances, and continuous monitoring of turbidity and disinfection residuals. The frequency of testing varies by type of contaminant and the population served by the water systems.88 Bacteriological testing after water system construction or alteration required. Daily chlorine residual testing required. All other testing is discretionary. Required sampling and frequency are specified in the individual water permit or as directed by an order made pursuant to the Act. Testing is required for bacteria and chlorine, and for any other constituents that the permit requires to be monitored.89 Coliform testing required and frequency is based upon population. Chlorine residual testing is required. Some monitoring of physical characteristics is required. Chemical and radiological testing is discretionary. Current: Sampling and frequency is discretionary, as determined by the Environmental Health Services. Proposed: Testing is required for bacteriological, chemical, and physical quality, turbidity, trihalomethanes, and other organisms or substances as may be required by a health officer.90 PEI A significant improvement Quebec No new legislation Saskatchewan New legislation Yukon 52 'JOEJOHT S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND TA B L E 4 : R E G U L AT I O N O F W AT E R S Y S T E M D E S I G N A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N +VSJTEJDUJPO Alberta New legislation Effectively no change British Columbia New legislation Effectively no change Manitoba New legislation Effectively no change Newfoundland New legislation Effectively no change New Brunswick No change NW Territories No change Nova Scotia No significant changes Nunavut No new legislation Ontario New regulation, similar requirements 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Alberta requires an approval as a prerequisite to operating a drinking water system. Pursuant to the Potable Water Regulation, all water treatment systems must be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with standards issued by Alberta. Additionally, either the Environment Ministry or the independent, U.S.-based, National Sanitation Foundation must approve all chemicals used for water treatment. Alberta requires design and construction permits for drinking water systems. Pursuant to the Potable Water Regulation, all water treatment systems must be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with standards issued by Alberta.91 B.C. requires both a construction permit and an operating permit. Provincial regulators review construction plans prior to issuing a construction permit. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives. B.C. requires both a construction permit and an operating permit. Provincial regulators review construction plans prior to issuing a construction permit. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives.92 The Minister of Health must approve plans and specifications before a public water system can be constructed, operated or altered. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives. The Minister of Health must approve plans and specifications before a public water system can be constructed, operated or altered. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives.93 The Minister of Environment must approve plans and specifications before a public water system can be constructed, operated or altered. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives. The Minister of Environment must approve plans and specifications before a public water system can be constructed, operated or altered. However, there are no binding standards related to design, construction, materials, or treatment methods or additives.94 New Brunswick regulates water system design and construction. There are construction and materials standards for wells, but not for water treatment systems. New Brunswick regulates water system design and construction. There are construction and materials standards for wells, but not for water treatment systems.95 Approval to construct a drinking water treatment system is required and there are binding requirements with respect to construction standards and materials. Approval to construct a drinking water treatment system is required. Standards are prescribed in the regulations for filtration, chlorination and feed equipment.96 Public water systems must be classified (based on population served) and registered with the Province. There are no binding standards regarding design, construction, or materials used. Public water systems must be classified (based on population served) and registered with the Province. There are no specific binding standards regarding design, construction, or materials used, but materials and chemicals must be “food grade.”97 Approval is required. There are binding requirements with respect to construction standards and materials. Approval to construct a drinking water treatment system is required. Standards are prescribed in the regulations for filtration, chlorination and feed equipment.98 The establishment, alteration, extension or repair of waterworks requires an approval issued by the Environment Ministry. Plans and specifications for water works may be reviewed during the approval process. There are no binding standards for design, construction or materials. The establishment, alteration, extension or repair of waterworks requires an approval issued by the Environment Ministry. Plans and specifications for water works may be reviewed during the approval process. There are no binding standards for design, construction or materials, but the criteria set out in the Recommended Standards for Water Works should be met.99 DPOUJOVFE PO OFYU QBHF W AT E R PR OOF 2 53 Regulation of Water System Design and Construction DPOUJOVFE +VSJTEJDUJPO PEI New legislation Quebec Saskatchewan No change Yukon 54 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Approvals are not required and there are no binding standards for design, construction or materials. Approvals for system construction, modification, and operation are required. There are no binding standards for design, construction or materials (but these can be reviewed through the approval process and officials refer to non-binding standards when approving).100 The construction or operation of public waterworks requires approval and there are binding standards regarding design, construction and materials. The construction or operation of public waterworks requires approval. Performance requirements for filtration, disinfection, and turbidity are established under the regulations.101 The construction or operation of public waterworks requires approval and there are binding standards regarding design, construction and materials. The construction or operation of public waterworks requires approval and there are binding standards regarding design, construction and materials.102 Approvals are not required and there are no binding standards for design, construction or materials. Current: Approvals are required according to the Territorial Government. Proposed: Approval by Environmental Health Services is required for construction or modification of a water system.103 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND TA B L E 5 : A C C R E D I T E D L A B S A N D O P E R AT O R C E R T I F I C AT I O N +VSJTEJDUJPO 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Microbiological samples must be tested at the provincial lab (water providers are not charged for these tests). Other types of testing must be performed at a lab approved by the Director (as named under the 1PUBCMF 8BUFS 3FHVMBUJPO) or by an approved analytical method. There is currently no lab accreditation program. Operator certification required. The operation of the water treatment system must be performed by a person holding a valid certificate issued by the Director. Certificates must be renewed every three years. The Director must also approve laboratories.104 Testing must be performed at accredited labs. Operator certification not required. Operator certification is required for larger systems, and may be required for smaller systems. Testing must be performed at accredited labs.105 The provincial government selects (by contract) the labs where testing is performed. There is no requirement that the labs themselves be accredited. Operator certification not required. Current: Water system operators must obtain certification from the Director. The provincial government selects (by contract) the labs where testing is performed. A “laboratory” is defined as being accredited in accordance with the regulations or approved by the Director. Proposed: Regulations for operating licenses under the %SJOLJOH 8BUFS 4BGFUZ "DU 106 The use of accredited labs is not required, but testing performed by the province is done at the provincial lab or another accredited lab. (Generally, however, Newfoundland does not require testing, although it undertakes some testing itself.) Operator certification not required. There are no requirements for operator training or certification. The use of accredited labs is not required, but testing performed by the province is done at the Provincial lab or another accredited lab. There are no requirements for operator training or certification. Testing must be performed at accredited labs. Operator certification not required. There are no requirements for operator training or certification. The Minister of the Environment has the discretion to prescribe a training program. Testing must be performed at accredited labs.107 The use of accredited labs is not required. Operator certification not required. There are no requirements for operator training or certification. Testing must be conducted at a certified laboratory (one designated by the Chief Medical Health Officer).108 Operator certification is required. Labs need not be accredited, but water suppliers must conduct testing at labs acceptable to the Department of Environment. The province’s lab accreditation policy is being drafted. There are operator requirements for education and experience for each class of water system. Certificates must be renewed every four years. All testing results, except bacteriological, must be from accredited labs.109 Nunavut The use of accredited labs is not required. Operator certification not required. There are no requirements for operator training or certification. Testing must be conducted at a certified laboratory (one designated by the Chief Medical Health Officer). Ontario Operator certification required but some operators exempt. Accredited lab requirement pending. There are operator certification requirements varying by class. All testing must be done at an accredited lab.110 The use of accredited labs is not required. Operator certification not required. Operators must be certified and renew every four years. The owner of public drinking water facilities must ensure that testing is done at an accredited laboratory.111 The use of accredited labs is required. Operator certification program proposed. Operators must be certified and renew every five years. The use of accredited labs is required.112 Alberta New legislation Improvement British Columbia Improvement Manitoba New legislation with regulations forthcoming Newfoundland No change New Brunswick No change NW Territories Nova Scotia Improvement PEI Significant improvement Quebec DPOUJOVFE PO OFYU QBHF W AT E R PR OOF 2 55 Accredited Labs and Operator Certification DPOUJOVFE +VSJTEJDUJPO Saskatchewan New legislation Yukon 56 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT The use of accredited labs is not required; however, testing is generally done at the provincial lab or a lab acceptable to the province. Operator certification pending. All operators must be certified. All testing must be done at an accredited lab.113 Operator certification not required. Testing must be performed at an accredited lab. Current: There are no requirements for operator training or certification. Testing is at accredited labs. Proposed: Classes of operators must be certified. Testing is at accredited labs.114 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND TA B L E 6 : T R A N S P A R E N C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y +VSJTEJDUJPO Alberta New legislation British Columbia New legislation Manitoba Plans to commence public reporting will enhance the public’s right to know Newfoundland Public reporting has improved New Brunswick No effective changes NW Territories 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government. Any malfunction of the plant must be reported to government officials. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. Public reporting of water quality tests is not yet required, but action is underway to provide internet access to drinking water quality data. Disinfection equipment failures and adverse water quality tests must be reported. The Regional Health Authority Officer has the discretion to issue a boil water advisory to the public.115 Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government where testing is required. Public notification of potential health threats must be provided. Equipment malfunctions must be reported to government, but there is no corresponding requirement for public notification. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government where testing is required. Public notification of potential health threats must be provided by the drinking water officer. A water supplier must make test results, an annual report, and contingency plans available to the public. There is a requirement for the provincial health officer to prepare an annual drinking water protection report, but no report has yet been provided.116 The province contracts with labs for microbiological testing and these results are reported to the provincial government. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. Current: No mandatory provisions requiring public reporting of water quality testing results, non-compliance incidents, or public reporting of emergencies. Proposed: According to Manitoba Water Stewardship, they have acquired software for a database and expect it to be operational this fiscal year. Emergencies and non-compliance will require immediate notification of the director, a medical officer, or a drinking water officer.117 There is no requirement that routine test results be reported to government, however, the province does most testing. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. Online reporting for trihalomethanes available. The Department of Environment and Conservation undertakes testing and produces annual and quarterly reports. The test results on physical parameters, major ions, nutrients, and metals are regularly provided to the public online. Boil water advisories are available online, but there are no regulatory criteria specifying when boil alerts should be issued or the notification procedures.118 Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. There is no requirement for individual systems to provide public reporting. The provincial government does not produce an annual report regarding drinking water quality trends or testing results. According to the Department of Environment, the contracts for water systems require operators to maintain contingency plans and to notify the Department when emergencies occur.119 Routine water testing results must be reported to the territorial government. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. There is no requirement for individual systems to provide public reporting and the territorial government does not produce an annual report. There is a water quality database online, complete with boil water advisories. However, there are no regulatory criteria specifying when boil water alerts should be issued or the proper notification procedures.120 DPOUJOVFE PO OFYU QBHF W AT E R PR OOF 2 57 Transparency and Accountability DPOUJOVFE +VSJTEJDUJPO Nova Scotia Criteria for boil water notices improved Nunavut Ontario Changes increase public transparency and accountability and a right to request a drinking water report has been created 'JOEJOHT Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government, as must specific water quality concerns. Nova Scotia’s guidelines also contain directions for issuing boil water alerts, but these are not legally binding. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. There is no requirement for individual systems to provide public reporting and the provincial government does not produce an annual drinking water report. If water quality standards are not met, Nova Scotia Environment and Labour (NSEL) must be informed. If one or more of the criteria set out for boil water advisories is met, the owner has a duty to contact NSEL and initiate the advisory.121 Routine water testing results must be reported to the province. There is no requirement that water contamination or equipment malfunctions be reported to consumers. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. There is no requirement for individual systems to provide public reporting and the territorial government does not produce an annual report. Online reporting is not available even though a database is kept. However, there are no regulatory criteria specifying when boil water alerts should be issued or the proper notification procedures. Routine water testing results must be reported to the provincial government, as do cases of suspected contamination. Public notification of microbiological threats is required. Water treatment facilities must make available for inspection by the public all testing results and approvals. Right-to-know reports must be prepared on a quarterly basis. Annual reports are required and test results must be made available to the public. Additionally, Ontario’s Chief Drinking Water Inspector presented his first annual report in 2006. Details of adverse water quality incidents are available online. There are specific criteria for when adverse test results must be reported to the Ministry and the medical officer of health and when public notices must be issued.122 None. Utilities are required to report water quality testing to consumers annually. The Department of Environment, Energy, and Forestry is planning on producing annual reports and developing a water quality database. There are no specific regulatory criteria specifying when boil water alerts should be issued or the notification procedures for alerts.123 Water suppliers must report violations of contaminant standards. Boil water alerts are required in certain circumstances, and the procedure and public notification requirements are legally binding. There is no requirement for the preparation of a public right-to-know report. Water suppliers must report violations of contaminant standards. Boil water alerts are required in certain circumstances, and the procedure and public notification requirements are legally binding. Regional reports are prepared by each of the public health directors and are made public. Water testing results must be communicated electronically to government.124 Routine water test results are reported at the request of the provincial government. Water suppliers must also report violations of contaminant standards to government. Results must be reported on request or upon violation of contaminant standards. Water suppliers must notify the public when contaminant standards are exceeded three times in 30 days. There is no requirement for the preparation of a right-to-know report. Annual reports by the utilities must be given to consumers. An annual report prepared by the department, as well as community specific reports are available online. In emergencies, the minister has the discretion to issue a boil water advisory, issue an order suspending operation of the waterworks, or take other appropriate action. Inspection reports are now available online.125 PEI Annual consumer water reports now required Quebec Saskatchewan Strong public transparency 'JOEJOHT DPOUJOVFE PO OFYU QBHF 58 S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND Transparency and Accountability DPOUJOVFE +VSJTEJDUJPO Yukon W AT E R PR OOF 2 'JOEJOHT 'JOEJOHT Current: Routine testing results and violations of water quality standards must be reported to territorial officials. There is no requirement for the preparation of a right-to-know report. Citizens can Routine testing results and violations of obtain information through Environmental Health water quality standards must be reported to Services or their provider. There are no regulations territorial officials. There is no requirement for regarding boil water advisories. Proposed: the preparation of a right-to-know report. Environmental Health Services may choose to post or release testing information to the public. The health officer has the discretion to issue a boil water advisory.126 59 NOTES 1 Justice Dennis R. O’Connor. 2002. Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. Toronto: Queen’s Printer. 2 “Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases” MMWR: Morbid Mortal Weekly Report 48:29 (July 30 1999) 621-629; WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, Global WaterSupply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report, UNICEF, online: WHO http://www. who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/globalassess/en/. 3 4 5 6 7 8 “Canadians’ Attitudes and Opinions Toward Environmental Issues” The Environmental Monitor 2003-2005, Globescan, online: http://www.globescan.com. Personal communication with Prof. David R. Boyd. Electronic mail of September 14, 2006. J.B. Rose, R.M. Atlas, C.P. Gerba, et al., “Microbial Pollutants in Our Nation’s Water: Environmental and Public Health Issues.” Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology, 1999. R.D. Morris & R. Levin, “Estimating the Incidence of Waterborne Infectious Disease Relating to Drinking Water in the United States” in E.G. Reichard & G.A. Zapponi, eds., Assessing and Managing Health Risks from Drinking Water Contamination: Approaches and Applications (Oxfordshire, UK: Int’l Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences no. 233, 1995) 75-88. B.A. Macler & J.C. Merkle, “Current Knowledge on Groundwater Microbial Pathogens and their Control” (2000) 8 Hydrogeology Journal 29-40. Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development. 2005. “Safety of Drinking Water – Federal Responsibilities,” in Report to the House of Commons. Ottawa: CESD. 9 Environment Canada, Children’s Health and the Environment in North America: A First Report on Available Indicators and Measures (Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada, 2005) at 47. 10 Population and Public Health Branch, Drinking Water Quality and Health Care Utilization for Gastrointestinal Illness in Greater Vancouver by J. Aramini, M. McLean, et al. (Ottawa: Health Canada, 2000), online: http://www. phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/00vol26/dr2624ec. html. 60 11 P. Payment et al, “Epidemiology of Endemic Gastrointestinal and Respiratory Diseases: Incidence, Fraction Attributable to Tap Water and Costs to Society” (1991) 81 American J. Pub. Health 703-708; P. Payment et al. (1997) 7 Int’l J. Environmental Health Research 5-31. 12 G. Van der Kamp & G. Grove, “Well Water Quality in Canada: An Overview,” in M. Mahmoud & R. van Everdingen, eds., An Earth Odyssey: Proceedings of the 54th Canadian Geotechnical Conference Held September 16-19, 2001 (Richmond, B.C.: Bitech Publishers, 2001) at 45–49. 13 Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, Drinking Water in First Nations Communities: Report to the House of Commons (Ottawa: CESD, 2005). 14 D. Boyd, Unnatural Law (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003) at 1159. 15 D. Boyd, supra 11 at 115. 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Basic Information about Radionuclides in Drinking Water (2006), online: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/ basicinformation.html. 17 Seema Mehta & Dave McKibben “Radioactive Leak Reaches Nuclear Plant’s Groundwater” LA Times (18 August 2006), online: http://www.latimes.com/news/ local/la-me-radioactive18aug18,0,3580491.story?coll=lahome-local. 18 Walkerton Inquiry, Part II, supra note 1, p. 72. 19 Investigating the relationship between drinking water and gastroenteritis in Edmonton: 1993 – 1998 (Health Canada, 2002). 20 Walkerton Inquiry, Part II, supra, note 1. 21 Auditor General of Canada, “2005 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development“ (2005), c. 4 – Safety of Drinking Water – Federal Responsibilities, online: Office of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/ reports.nsf/html/c20050904ce.html. 22 Ibid. c. 5 – Drinking Water in First Nations Communities, online: Office of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/ c20050905ce.html. 23 Ibid. S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND 24 Ibid. [emphasis added]. 25 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, “Government Announces Immediate Action on First Nations Drinking Water” (2006), online: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/202757_e.html. Water a Shared Responsibility: United Nations World Water Development Report 2 (New York: UNESCO and Berghahn, 2006) at 402, online: UNESCO http://www. unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr2/pdf/wwdr2_ch_12.pdf. 38 26 Supra note 1. 27 American cement plants reported on a total of 79 pollutants while Canadian facilities reported on only 25. Furthermore, American cement plants are reporting more pollution per plant than Canadian plants, on average 13 times more, even though cement plants in both countries are largely owned and operated by the same multinationals. See online: Sierra Legal Defence Fund http://www.sierralegal.org/m_archive/ pr06_07_27.html. 28 Supra note 1. 29 Government of Canada 2005, “Children’s Health and the Environment in North America: A First Report on Available Indicators and Measures. Country Report: Canada” (Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada, 2006) at 47, 56, online: Commission for Environmental Cooperation http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/CountryReport-Canada-CHE_en.pdf. 30 Environment Canada, “Threats to Water Availability in Canada” (Burlington, ON: National Water Research Institute, 2004), online: Environment Canada http:// www.nwri.ca/threats2full/ThreatsEN_03web.pdf. 31 World Health Organization, “Fact Sheet: Climate and Health” (2005), No. 266, online: World Health Organization http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/. 32 Ibid. 33 See comments of David Schindler in “Looming drought on Prairies will be worse than Dust Bowl days of 1930s: Experts” (4 April 2006), online: CBC News http://www. cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/04/04/albertadrought-20060404.html. 34 Environment Canada, “Climate Change Overview: The Science of Climate Change” (5 October 2005), online: Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/climate/overview_science-e.html. 35 See online: The Council of Canadians http://www. canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=&id =1388&isdoc=1&catid=40. 36 CTV “Concerns on Reserve over Water Ignored for Years”; found online at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051027/aboriginal_water_feature_051027/20051027/. 37 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – World Water Assessment Programme, W AT E R PR OOF 2 E. Pip, “Survey of Bottled Drinking Water Available in Manitoba, Canada” (2000) 108:9 Environ. Health Perspect. 863, online: Environmental Health Perspectives http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p863866pip/pip.pdf. 39 Supra note 1. 40 FS vom Saal & C. Hughes, ”An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment” (2005) 113:8 Environ. Health Perspect. 926, online: The National Center for Biotechnology Information http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop t=Abstract&list_uids=16079060. 41 Katharine Sanderon, “Toxic risk in bottled water?” (2006), online: Royal Society of Chemistry http:// www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/January/19010601.asp. 42 See online: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony. 43 John Stossel, “Is Bottled Water Better than Tap” (2005), online: ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/2020/ Health/story?id=728070&page=3. 44 R. Glennon, Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America’s Fresh Waters (Washington: Island Press, 2002), at pp. 8-9. 45 Tony Clarke, “Polaris Institute Responds to CBWA Critique” (2005), online: The Polaris Institute http:// www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/water_lords/ articles/cbwa.html. 46 Department of Conservation, “Report: Surge in Bottled Water Popularity Threatens Environment” (2003), online: Department of Conservation News Room http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/ news/2003%20News%20Releases/NR2003-13_Water_ Bottle_Crisis.htm. 47 Canadian Environmental Law Association, “Bottled Waters FAQs”, online: Canadian Environmental Law Association http://62.44.8.131/faq/cltn_detail. shtml?x=1506#1699. 48 Food and Drug Regulation C.R.C., c. 870 (Food and Drug Act, R.S., 1985, c. F-27 ), s. B.12.001. 49 Ibid. B.12.004. 50 Ont. Reg. 170/03: Drinking-Water Systems, Schedule 10: Microbiological Sampling and Testing, Large Municipal Residential, (Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002), s. 10. 61 51 52 53 “Protecting water quality – Water Quality Assurance Program” (City of Toronto), found online at: http:// www.toronto.ca/water/protecting_quality/quality_assurance.htm. The Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed recognition of the right to live in a healthy environment. In recent years more than seventy nations, including more than twenty in Europe, have explicitly acknowledged, in their constitutions, that all citizens have the right to a healthy environment. Quebec is leading Canadian efforts on this important issue. Quebec recently amended the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., chapter C-12) to state: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.” Alberta Ministry of Environment, Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems ( January 2006) at ss. 1.2.1.1; 1.2.2; 1.3.2, online: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/posting.asp?assetid=6979&subcategoryid=96. 54 B.C. Reg. 200/2003 (Drinking Water Protection Regulation), s.5. 55 Man. Reg. 330/88 (Public Health Act, C.C.S.M. c. P210), ss. 8; 10, online: http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/ p210-330.88r.pdf. 56 Newfoundland Ministry of Environment, Standards for Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water (9 April 2002), online: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/Env/waterres/ Consultation/Water-BacteriaStd.asp. 57 N.B. Reg. 1988-200 (Health Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-2), ss. 225(2); 223. 58 R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c. P-23 (Public Water Supply Regulations), ss. 15(1); 10-14. 59 Nova Scotia Ministry of Environment and Labour, Treatment Standard for Municipal Surface Source Water Treatment Facilities (1 April 2003), online: http://www. gov.ns.ca/enla/water/docs/MunicipalSurfaceSourceWaterStd.pdf; Groundwater Treatment Standards (1 May 2003), online: http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/water/docs/ GroundwaterTreatment.pdf. 60 R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c. P-23 (Public Water Supply Regulations), ss. 15(1); 17(1), online: http://www.canlii. org/nu/regu/cons/pdf/Reg313.pdf. 61 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Procedure For Disinfection Of Drinking Water In Ontario (As adopted by reference by O. Reg. 170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act) (1 June 2003) at 7-8, online: http://www.ene. gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4448e.pdf. 62 P.E.I. Premier’s Office, Drinking Water Quality, online: http://www.gov.pe.ca/roundtable/index. php3?number=69426; P.E.I. Reg. EC2004-710 (Drink- 62 ing Water and Wastewater Facility Operation Regulation), s. 11. 63 R.R.Q. 2001, c. Q-2, r. 18.1.1 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), ss. 5; 22, online: www.canlii. org/qc/laws/regu/q-2r.18.1.1/index.html. 64 R.R.S. 2002, c. E-10.21 Reg. 1 (The Water Regulations), 2001, s. 30(5). 65 Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), ss. 36(1); 37; 38. 66 Alberta Ministry of Environment, Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems ( January 2006) at s. 1.1, online: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/posting. asp?assetid=6979&subcategoryid=96; Alta. Reg. 277/2003 (Potable Water Regulation), s. 6(1)(a). 67 B.C. Reg. 200/2003 (Drinking Water Protection Regulation), s.5. 68 The Water Supply Commissions Act C.C.S.M.c. W100, s. 10(7); Manitoba Water Stewardship, Guidelines for Public Water Systems98-02 (August 1998) at Appendix C, online: http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/odw/ reg-info/operations-monitor/es155-98.pdf. 69 Newfoundland Min. Environment, Standards for Chemical and Physical Monitoring of Drinking Water (9 April 2002), online: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/Env/env/ waterres/Policies/WQ-Standard-PhysicalChemical.asp; Standards for Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water (9 April 2002), online: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/Env/ waterres/policies/wq-standards-microbiological.asp. 70 R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c. P-23 (Public Water Supply Regulations), ss. 10-14. 71 N.S. Reg. 186/2005 (Water and Wastewater Facilities and Public Drinking Water Supplies Regulations), c.1 s. 35. 72 R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c. P-23 (Public Water Supply Regulations), s. 11. 73 O. Reg. 170/03 (Drinking Water Systems), Schedule 1-3; Schedule 1, ss. 1-4(a)(ii). 74 P.E.I. Reg. EC2004-710 (Drinking Water and Wastewater Facility Operation Regulation), s. 8. 75 R.R.Q. 2001, c. Q-2, r. 18.1.1 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), Schedule 1, ss. 1; 6, online: www.canlii.org/qc/laws/regu/q-2r.18.1.1/index.html. 76 R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. 1 (The Water Regulations) 2002, ss. 31(2)(b); 32(1); 33; 34. 77 Y.O.I.C. 1999/82 (Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation), s. 1, online: http://www.canlii.org/yk/laws/regu/ 1999r.82/20041124/whole.html; Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), s. 4, 44(1). S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND 78 Alta. Reg. 277/2003 (Potable Water Regulation), s. 17(3); Alberta Ministry of Environment, Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems ( January 2006) at ss. 1.10.2; 1.10.3, online: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/posting. asp?assetid=6979&subcategoryid=96. 90 Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), s. 42(1). 91 Alta. Reg. 277/2003 (Potable Water Regulation), s. 4(1); s. 5(1), online: http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/ regu/2003r.277/20050801/whole.html. 79 B.C. Reg. 200/2003 (Drinking Water Protection Regulation), Schedule A; B; ss. 2; 8. 92 B.C. Reg. 200/2003 (Drinking Water Protection Regulation), s. 7. 80 Manitoba Min. Environment, Guidelines for Public Water Systems: Chlorine Residual Testing and Reporting, and Bacteriological Water Sampling, Submission and Interpretation (August 1998), online: http://www.gov. mb.ca/waterstewardship/odw/reg-info/operationsmonitor/es155-98.pdf; Drinking Water Safety Act, S.M. 2002, c. 36, s. 21(1). 93 Man. Reg. 331/88 R (Water Works, Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Regulation), s. 2; The Drinking Water Safety Act, S.M. 2002, c. 36, s. 7. 81 Newfoundland Department of Environment, Drinking Water Safety in Newfoundland and Labrador, Annual Reports 2002, 2003, 2004, online: http://www.env.gov. nl.ca/env/Env/waterres/Surfacewater/DWS-Report/ DWS-Report-2002.pdf; Newfoundland Department of Environment, Source To Tap: Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador (May 2001), s. 4, online: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/sourcetotap/SourceToTap/FMT-Section4.PDF. 82 N.B. Reg. 93-203 (Potable Water Regulation). 83 R.R.N.W.T. 1990 (Public Water Supply Regulations), c. P-23, ss. 9; 11; 12. 84 Nova Scotia Min. Environment and Labour, Guidelines for Monitoring Public Drinking Water Supplies (12 December 2005), ss. 4.1.6; 4.2.6; 5.1.5; 5.2.6, online: http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/water/docs/Guidelines_for_ Monitoring_Public_Drinking_Water_Supplies.pdf. 85 R.R.N.W.T. 1990 (Public Water Supplies Regulation), c. P-23, s.9; s. 17(6)(a). 86 O. Reg. 170/03 (Drinking Water Systems), Schedule 7-13. 87 P.E.I. Reg. EC710/04 (Drinking Water and Wastewater Facility Operating Regulations), ss. 8-11. 88 R. R.Q. 2001, c. Q-2, r.18.1.1 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), ss. 11; 14; 15; 18; 19; 21; 33, online: http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/regu/q-2r.18.1.1/ index.html. 89 R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. 1 (The Water Regulations), 2002, s. 39(1); Saskatchewan Min. Environment, Municipal Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines, EPB 202 Ed. 2 (1 March 2004), online: http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/ environment/protection/water/EPB%20202%20-%20 Municipal%20Drinking%20Water%20Quality%20Gui delines.pdf#search=%22Municipal%20Drinking%20W ater%20Quality%20Monitoring%20Guidelines%22. W AT E R PR OOF 2 94 Water Resources Act, S.N.L. 2002, c. W-4.01, ss. 37; Newfoundland Min. Environment, Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Operation of Water and Sewerage Works (December 2005), online: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/ env/Env/waterres/CWWS/Guidelines_Water_Sewerage/Report.asp. 95 Health Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-2, s. 14(1); N.B. Reg. 1982-126 (Water Quality Regulation). 96 R.R.N.W.T. 1990 (Public Water Supply Regulations), c. P-23, ss. 3; 14-18. 97 N.S. Reg. 47/95 (Activities Designation Regulations), ss. 9; 5(1)(a). 98 R.R.N.W.T. 1990 (Public Water Supplies Regulation), c. P-23, ss. 14(2); 15(2)-(6); 16(1); 16(5); 17(5); 18(1); 20(1). 99 Ontario Min. Environment, Procedure for Disinfection of Drinking Water in Ontario ( 1 June 2003 ), s. 1.2, online: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4448e. pdf#search=%22Procedure%20for%20Disinfection%2 0of %20Drinking%20Water%20in%20Ontario%22. 100 P.E.I. Reg. EC710/04 (Drinking Water and Wastewater Facility Operating Regulations). 101 Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., chapter Q-2, Division IV, S. 22; R.R.Q.2001 c. Q-2 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), ss. 5; 6; 22; see also Quebec Devloppement durable, Environnement et Parcs, Guide de conception des installations de production d’eau potable (2002), online: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/potable/guide/index.htm. 102 Saskatchewan Min. Environment, Guide to Waterworks Design, EPB 201 (November 2002), s. 1.1, online: http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/environment/protection/ water/EPB%20201%20-%20A%20Guide%20to%20W aterworks%20Design.pdf. 103 Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), s. 16. 104 Alta. Reg. 277/2003 (Potable Water Regulation) s. 1(1)(b); 14(1); 15(1), online: http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/ regu/2003r.277/20050801/whole.html; Alberta Min. of Environment, Water and Wastewater Operators’ Certification Guidelines (1 January 2005), online: http://www3. 63 gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/forms/WaterGuidelinesBookletv2.pdf. 105 Drinking Water Protection Act, SBC 2001, c-9, s. 9(1); B.C. Reg. 200/2003 (Drinking Water Protection Regulation), s. 12; a list of accredited testing labs is available at B.C. Min. Health, Drinking Water Program ( June 2006), online: www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/protect/ water.html. 106 Man. Reg. 77/2003 (Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Regulation), ss. 12; 13, online: http://web2.gov. mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-077.03.pdf; Drinking Water Safety Act, S.M. 2002, c. 36, s. 8; Schedule B to The Environment Act, C.C.S.M. c. E125 (2003), online: http:// www.canlii.org/mb/laws/regu/2003r.77/20050913/ whole.html. 107 N.B. Reg. 1982-126 (Water Quality Regulation); Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, s. 19(1); N.B. Reg. 93-203 (Potable Water Regulation), s. 9. 108 R.R.N.W.T. 1990, c. P-23 (Public Water Supply Regulations), s. 17(6)(b). 109 N.S. Reg. 186/2005, c. 1 (Water and Wastewater Facilities and Public Drinking Water Supplies Regulations), ss. 19; 23(3). 110 O. Reg. 128/04 (Certification of Drinking-Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts), ss. 6-15; 29; Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32, ss. 11(3); 64. 111 P.E.I. Reg. EC710/04 (Drinking Water and Wastewater Facility Operating Regulations), ss. 5; 6; 13. 112 R.R.Q. c. Q-2 2001 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), ss. 43; 44; Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., chapter Q-2, Division IV, s. 45.1; for accreditation information, see also Centre d’expertise en Analyse Environmentale du Quebec, online: http://www.ceaeq. gouv.qc.ca/accreditation/palae/index_en.htm. 113 Saskatchewan Min. Environment, Saskatchewan Water and Wastewater Works Operator Certification Standards, EPB 139/02/2M (2002); R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. 1 (The Water Regulations), 2002, ss. 38; 61(1)(a); 63; 68. 114 Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), ss. 20(1); 33(1); Bulk Delivery of Drinking Water Guidelines for Regulation, s. 20(1). 115 Alta. Reg. 277/2003 (Potable Water Regulation), s. 11; Alberta Min. Environment and Min. of Health, Communication And Action Protocol For Failed Bacteriological Results In Drinking Water For Waterworks Systems Authorized Under The Environmental Protection And Enhancement Act (April 2003), ss. 4.1; 7.1; online: http://Environment.Gov.Ab.Ca/Info/Library/6000.Pdf. 116 Drinking Water Protection Act, SBC 2001, c. 9, ss. 4.1 (1); 4.2 (1); 11; 12(1); 14(1); 15. 64 117 Drinking Water Safety Act, S.M. 2002, c. 36, ss. 22(2); 26. 118 Regular updates on drinking water quality are provided at the Newfoundland Min. of Environment at http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/env/waterres/Surfacewater/Drinking/DrinkingWater.asp; updates on public emergencies are provided at http://www.env.gov. nl.ca/Env/env/waterres/CWWS/Microbiological/BoilWaterAdvisories.asp. 119 N.B. Reg. 93-203 (Potable Water Regulation), ss. 5(3-5); 6. 120 The N.W.T. Min. of Environment regularly posts updates to its website regarding results of chemical and bacteriological (http://www.pws.gov.nt.ca/water/ waterq_main_menu.asp) and water quality with boil water advisories (http://www.pws.gov.nt.ca/Water/ Homepage.asp). 121 Nova Scotia Min. of Environment & Labour, Annual Accountability Report For The Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (December 2005), online: http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/ pubs/docs/nsel-accountability2005.pdf; N.S. Min. of Environment and Labour, Guidelines for Monitoring Public Drinking Water Supplies (15 December 2005), ss. 4.1.4; 4.2.4; 4.4.1; 4.5; 4.6.1; 5.1.4; 5.2.4; 5.4.1; 5.5.1; 5.6.1, online: http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/water/ docs/Guidelines_for_Monitoring_Public_Drinking_Water_Supplies.pdf#search=%22Guidelines%20fo r%20Monitoring%20Public%20Drinking%20Water%2 0Supplies%22. 122 O. Reg. 170/03 (Drinking Water Systems), ss. 11(9.1); (10); Chief Drinking Water Inspector, Ministry of Environment, Ontario’s Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems – 2003-2004 Results and Interim Results for 204-2005 (31 May 2005), online: http://www.ene.gov. on.ca/envision/water/sdwa/dwsr.htm; Also, reports on adverse drinking water quality incidents are available online: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/adverse/ adversewater.htm; public health emergencies are published under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32, s. 18. 123 P.E.I. Reg. EC710/04 (Drinking Water and Wastewater Facility Operating Regulations), s. 14(1). 124 Public Health Act, R.S.Q. c. S-2.2, s. 10, online:www. canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/s-2.2/20050809/whole.html; R.R.Q. c. Q-2, 2001, r.18.1.1 (Regulation Respecting the Quality of Drinking Water), ss. 35; 36. 125 R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. (The Water Regulations), s. 44(1); Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 2002, c.E-10.21, ss. 3(1); 31; 32; 62. 126 Yukon Ministry of Environment, Public Drinking Water System – Guidelines for Regulation (August 2003), ss. 31; 45.1; 46; 59; 60; Bulk Delivery of Drinking Water Guidelines for Regulation, ss. 47.1; 51. S IER R A L EG AL DEF ENCE FUND SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND B.C. HEAD OFFICE Suite 214, 131 Water Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4M3 604.685.5618 1-800-926-7744 ONTARIO PROGRAM OFFICE Suite 900, 30 St. Patrick Street Toronto, Ontario M5T 3A3 416.368.7533 sldf@sierralegal.org W W W. S I E R R A L E G A L . O R G