Across the causeway - Exploring Solutions for Sustainable Rural

 Across the causeway: Exploring the drinking water system in Greenspond, NL Jen Daniels A community case-­‐study report for the Exploring Solutions for Sustainable Rural Drinking Water Systems project Principal Investigator: Kelly Vodden Project Coordinator: Sarah Minnes Environmental Policy Institute Memorial University June 2014 nlwater.ruralresilience.ca Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 1 List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... 2 List of figures and tables ............................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Project overview ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Community description .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Community water system .............................................................................................................. 7 Research findings ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Source water quality and quantity ............................................................................................. 9 2.2 Infrastructure and operations .................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Policy and governance ................................................................................................................. 18 2.4 Public perception, awareness, demand and practice .................................................... 24 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 Provincial Legislation Referenced .................................................................................................... 33 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Kelly Vodden, Principal Investigator and Sarah Minnes, Project Coordinator, for their support during this project as well bringing together this research, which is very relevant in exploring, and hopefully informing, those drinking water policies applied to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you also to the Town of Greenspond, and all those who participated in interviews. Thanks as well to Derrick Bragg who was very helpful in facilitating the field work in Greenspond. 1 List of acronyms BWA Boil water advisory/boil order DBP Disinfectant by-­‐product DOEC Department of Environment and Conservation DOHCS Department of Health and Community Services DWQI Drinking Water Quality Index GS Service NL/Government Services HAA Haloacetic acids ICSP Integrated Community Sustainability Plan LI Langelier Index MBSAP Multi-­‐ Barrier Strategic Action Plan MIGA Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs MNL Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland NL Newfoundland and Labrador OETC Operator Education, Training, and Certification PMA Professional Municipal Administrators of NL PVC Polyvinyl chloride THM Trihalomethanes 2 List of figures and tables Figure 1. MNL Central Region, Newfoundland and Labrador and location of Greenspond 6 Figure 2. The pump house and Shambler’s Cove Pond, Greenspond 8 Table 1. List of physical parameters and ions tested in drinking water by DOEC 11 Table 2. List of nutrients and metals tested in drinking water by DOEC 11 Figure 3. Causeway leading to Greenspond 17 Table 3. 19 Multi-­‐ Barrier Strategic Action Plan -­‐ Three levels of governance Figure 4. Town of Greenspond 19 Table 4. Roles and responsibilities of provincial departments managing drinking water in NL 20 Table 5. DOEC public drinking water quality reporting 21 3 Introduction Project overview In rural Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), watersheds provide drinking water supplies, while also supporting other resources and activities that shape the province’s culture, identity, and economy. Healthy drinking water supplies depend upon healthy watersheds as well as on the supporting water policies, practices, and infrastructure that are designed to protect and sustain them. The Exploring Solutions for Sustainable Rural Drinking Water Systems study, led by Dr. Kelly Vodden, aims to identify the types of risks and challenges influencing drinking water quality and availability in rural areas, with a particular emphasis on communities of 1,000 residents or less in NL. Criteria and conditions for success and possible solutions are also being examined. This project is in partnership with Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN), Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (MNL) and the Professional Municipal Administrators of NL (PMA). This interdisciplinary research addresses knowledge gaps related to drinking water systems in NL by providing a current and comprehensive picture of drinking water issues in small communities from multiple perspectives. This has been accomplished by drawing from current and past research and existing sources at federal, provincial and municipal levels, as well as research from other jurisdictions. Dialogue with stakeholders has also been a key method for understanding the issues and solutions for drinking water systems in rural NL. One component of the project is the completion of case studies; at least one for each of the six Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (MNL) regions. The objective of this case study research is to profile key issues, challenges, and solutions related to public drinking water systems in rural NL. The method of inquiry consists of semi-­‐structured key informant interviews using an interview guide and the review of key documents. In February 2014, the author conducted four key informant interviews in the Town of Greenspond. Participants included: one representative from the municipal staff, one resident, one business owner, and one Environmental Health Officer from the provincial government. All of the interview participants agreed to be audio-­‐recorded. The methodology is further described in Appendix A and the interview guide can be found in Appendix B. This report is an investigation into the water system in the Town of Greenspond, including: the source water, infrastructure, governance and public perception this system. Greenspond is the case study area for Central Region of Newfoundland, as defined by MNL. 4 Community description Greenspond is an island community that has been connected to the main island of Newfoundland by causeway since 1982, and is located in the Bonavista North, or Gander-­‐
New-­‐Wes-­‐Valley region. Greenspond has had a rich history as a fishing community and the administrative and economic centre of the Northeast coast of the island. The first settlement in the area dates back to the late 17th century, and because of the merchants and other high ranking personnel that settled there, the customs office and courthouse built in the community, and the town’s strategic location with respect to the main sea-­‐lanes in Bonavista Bay, Greenspond was referred to in the past as ‘the Capital of the North’ (Mercer, 2011). The population of Greenspond as of 2011 was approximately 300 residents, down from 365 in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2012). There is still an active fishing industry in Greenspond,1 despite the fact that there are far fewer individuals employed as fish harvesters and processors in the province as a whole than in past years. One community representative emphasized that residents maintain a relatively high median income, which is largely based in the fishery, compared to other communities in the province.2 Additionally, the municipality’s tax base is greatly benefited by seasonal residents – who visit from across Canada and abroad and reside in Greenspond during the summer months. Greenspond also plays an important role in tourism for the region by attracting visitors through its picturesque views of the area, the historic buildings in the community, and a boardwalk that extends along the Northeast coast of Greenspond Island. This report will highlight many different aspects of the drinking water system in Greenspond; however, it is important to note here that a unique feature in servicing this small island community is that its water must be transported from the mainland. This only became a feasible option after the causeway was constructed in 1982. Before that time, retrieving drinking water on the island was a remarkably different experience. Residents had personal wells, and there were shared reservoirs, which will be described in greater detail below. During dry periods under the old system, it wasn’t uncommon for people to row two kilometres to collect water from Shambler’s Cove Pond on the mainland. Perspectives offered from key informant interviews strongly suggest that both accessibility (quantity) and quality have improved dramatically since the town was connected to the mainland by causeway and the drinking water supply could be obtained from a reliable surface water source. 1 For example, the Beothic Fish Processors Headquarters is located in Valleyfield, only 5 km away (for more information please see www.beothic.com), and a fish plant is located in Greenspond. 2 One interview participant states that there are very few households in Greenspond that have less than $100,000 annual income. 5 Figure1. MNL Central Region, Newfoundland and Labrador and location of Greenspond 6 Community water system Source water supply The municipal drinking water in Greenspond is sourced from Shambler’s Cove Pond, a surface water source that is fed from a series of upriver ponds and headwaters. Shambler’s Cove Pond is located immediately adjacent to Greenspond Road, 200 metres from the causeway, and is designated as a protected water supply under the Water Resources Act (2002). Shambler’s Cove Pond has been the source water supply for Greenspond since 1984, at which time piping was installed along the length of the causeway and throughout the community. It was stated in participant interviews that this pond will continue to meet the needs of the 300 residents in Greenspond, now and in the future. Infrastructure The water infrastructure in Greenspond consists of an intake pipe, drawing water from Shambler’s Cove Pond into a pump house where the chlorine disinfection takes place (Figure 2). From the pump house, the water is pumped through the 6-­‐inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) mainline, which serves every household and was installed in segments over the mid-­‐1980s to early 1990s. Prior to reaching the community itself, the pipe runs underwater, immediately adjacent to the causeway, for two kilometres. The pipes running from the mainline to individual houses (i.e. after each curb stop) are composed largely of copper as well as PVC in some cases. It is not over engineered at all. There is a 6-­‐inch line throughout the main line, so there are no complaints about low pressure or anything like that. We’ve been lucky there. I know that there are towns that have 10-­‐12 inch lines with a population as little as 150 people, so the water is not really moving in the pipe and there is a good chance of sediment settling and that kind of thing. We looked at a cross-­‐section of our line, year before last, and it was as clean then as it was when it was put in the ground. So, that’s good. – Municipal representative Local governance Greenspond is governed by the Town Council, which consists of 7 elected volunteers: a Mayor, a Deputy Mayor, and 5 Councillors. Council meetings are scheduled on a bi-­‐monthly basis. There is no water committee, but the Town Manager, who oversees water operations, also attends the council meetings. The town employs one full time staff member, the Town Manager, and one part time staff member in maintenance. The Town Manager and the Maintenance Worker jointly manage the water system, and between them, the day-­‐to-­‐day water operations are covered. The Town Manager has extensive experience in that position and has worked for the Town of Greenspond for over 27 years. He is also the current president of PMA. There are no municipal documents related to drinking water planning and operations. Local water governance in Greenspond will be discussed further in the following section. 7 Key informant perspectives That [PMA] puts me in a good position of knowing what is going on with the other municipalities. A lot of administrators, I mean most towns only have one employee, similar to Greenspond. I think it is something like 80 percent with only one employee. When you look at that, a lot of people can relate to the job that I do and compare it to what they do, so I wouldn’t say that I was unique there. There are a lot of ‘jack-­‐of-­‐all-­‐ trades’ in those small towns. – Municipal representative Figure 2. The pump house and Shambler’s Cove Pond, Greenspond 8 Research findings The following four sections outline issues in Greenspond related to: Source water quality and quantity Infrastructure and operations Policy and governance Public perception, awareness and demand •
•
•
•
Source water quality and quantity As previously stated, Shambler’s Cove Pond is connected to a series of ponds in the watershed area. Source water quantity here is excellent, and there is no indication that the pond will be depleted based on the current demand placed on the system. There is no built infrastructure near the pond, other than the main road leading into the town (i.e. Greenspond Road). There is no cabin or industrial development in the area. Human activity near the water supply is minimal and, in addition to clear signage indicating the pond is a protected public water supply (Figure 2), there is also a high degree of public enforcement; that is, people are well aware that there should be no recreational use on or immediately around this pond. Indeed, it was stated in participant interviews that many residents would report if they saw anyone on Shambler’s Cove Pond—either in the summer or the winter. In terms of possible pollution related to the close proximity of the road, the only potential concern stated was that salt and sand used on the roads in the winter could make it into the water. However, this was not considered a significant threat. The other potential concern mentioned in interviews was that in the past the town had problems with seagulls landing on Shambler’s Cove Pond. In addressing this issue the town put ropes across the pond, which has deterred the gulls from getting in the pond. The water in Shambler’s Cove Pond is stated as being of good quality–especially compared to the drinking water sources on the island before the causeway was built. The topography of the watershed area, along with the predominantly heath and shrub vegetation cover, mean that there are few concerns associated with flooding, or issues associated with debris clogging the intake, or beavers building dams around the pond or in the headwaters. As stated by one interviewee, there are not enough larger trees around to sustain beavers in the area. However, since it is a surface water source, there are issues of discolouration, which can be more pronounced during the spring and fall. Because the water is effectively chlorinated, though, this discolouration is acknowledged as an aesthetic concern rather than an issue pertaining to safety, at least in terms of bacteriological pathogens. Nevertheless, it was stated in the interviews that the major concern of Greenspond residents is that chlorine negatively affects the taste of the water, in addition to discolouring salt meat. Another comment on the water quality and quantity of Shambler’s Cove Pond is that it is a vast improvement compared to the system(s) used in Greenspond prior to the causeway. Prior to 1984, there were some residents with their own dug wells and there was also a 9 reservoir catchment area where people in the community could collect water. However, as stated by one interviewee, the supply could get quite low, especially in the summer months. During these periods, people were also more susceptible to “summer sickness,” that is, gastrointestinal disturbances caused by the drinking water. Key informant perspectives Quantity is no problem. Our water is pumped across the causeway. The pond over there, well I won’t say it is an endless supply, but in 27 years, we have never had a shortage. Never once. Now the condition of the water, it is only treated with chlorine. There is no filtration system, it is only pond water and chlorine and it is pumped right through to residents. We usually end up on a boil water order at least once through the year. That could be because the chlorine levels are down, or there is a leak in the line…any number of things. – Municipal representative I can remember growing up here in Greenspond, in the summer time, and we got the buckets from our parents. We’d love to help. And we would go to the dam, or the reservoir, or whatever you want to call it. And we would have to get in there, with almost like a soup ladle to collect the water. And when you were carrying that water in the bucket, you couldn’t see the bottom of the bucket. But when it settled we drank it. There would be springs on the island that you could use. But near the end the water was getting pretty low. Even then people didn’t want to give up their personal wells. In the summer especially the water would get quite low, and there used to be a lot more people in Greenspond then are here now. -­‐ Resident/business owner Now, before that, before the causeway was put in. Greenspond was only connected by the causeway in 1982, before the causeway there were these little dams we called them. They were on the island, which were little valleys with cement poured across them. We just caught whatever rainwater we could and whatever ran out of the bog. That would have been a different time to do this survey, because the water then was as dark as this stapler. It was really peaty. That was only 30 years ago. People also had their own wells, dug wells. The town would maintain 3 or 4 drinking wells, shovelled snow off of them, that type of thing, so they could go out and get water in the wintertime. We have come a long way, so the quality of the water from Shambler’s Cove Pond doesn’t even compare. -­‐ Municipal representative Boil water advisory (BWA) A boil water advisory (BWA) is issued when water samples are found to have higher than acceptable amounts of fecal or total coliforms (bacteria) detected or when there are deficiencies in disinfection or the distribution infrastructure in general (DOEC, 2013a). BWAs can be issued by the municipality or provincial drinking water officials, however, only the provincial government may lift the BWA. Two consecutive clean samples taken by Environmental Health Officers or the Environmental Technician–both of whom work under Service NL (GS)–must occur at least a week apart before the BWA is lifted. According to the Drinking Water Quality Index summary on the Water Resources Portal, there have been no BWAs issued for Greenspond (DOEC, 2014a). However, this information does not correspond with that of the Town Manager, who is in charge of water operations and suggests that there has been at least one BWA over the last two years. The reason for this was an intermittent equipment malfunction, as opposed to systemic issues of being unable to maintain sufficient chlorine residual. According to one participant, it is 10 more difficult to remove the BWA than it is to apply one. In practical terms, this often means that in order to get a BWA lifted, the water must be cleaner than it was prior to the BWA issuance in the first place. This interviewee stated that the process of coming off BWAs is not very efficient. Finally, one provincial government respondent has suggested that municipal operators really do a lot of work in trying to prevent BWAs and it is not a straightforward task, especially when dealing with surface water sources. For instance, operators need to gauge appropriate chlorine amounts based on fluctuations in the broader water system, which can change not only on a weekly basis, but at some points of the year, dramatic changes can occur daily. This makes it difficult to foresee the necessary chlorine required in advance, but as operators gain experience with particular systems, their judgement improves. Key informant perspectives Operators get to know their water system and they do the best that they can. A lot time there can be a mechanical problem, which leads to a cascade of problems, and some years are just worse than others. The environment changes, and some years are harder than others. It’s a lot to do with the source water, because the infrastructure can be absolutely perfect and problems can still arise. Like this year, we have had a lot of snow, so we are going to get a lot of runoff. So much depends on the environment, and I don’t think the public realize that. – Provincial government representative Drinking Water Quality Index (DWQI) Greenspond has not been assigned a DWQI rating from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DOEC) because of the high levels of HAAs measured in their water supply for the last five years. The town also exceeded recommended levels of both HAAs and THMs in 2009 and 2010 according to the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (DOEC, 2014a). Physical parameters and major ions The DOEC Water Resources Portal provides results for physical parameters and major ions in source water and tap water, based on the listed maximum acceptable concentrations in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Table 1). Table 1. List of physical parameters and ions tested in drinking water by DOEC Physical parameters -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Alkalinity Colour Conductivity Hardness pH TDS TSS Turbidity Ions -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Boron Bromide Calcium Chloride Fluoride Potassium Sodium Sulfate 11 Nine sample dates are displayed for both source water and tap water. Both source and tap water results indicate that pH3 values and colour parameters were exceeded on every test date, with the last test dates on 17 November 2011 and 17 September 2013, respectively (DOEC, 2014a). Nutrients and metals Similar to physical parameters and ions, DOEC communicates results for nutrients and metals in source and tap water through the Water Resources Portal (Table 2). These results are also in accordance with the listed maximum acceptable concentrations in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Table 2. List of nutrients and metals tested in drinking water by DOEC Nutrients -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Metals Ammonia Dissolved Organic Carbon Nitrate(ite) Total phosphorous Kjeldahl nitrogen -­‐ Zinc -­‐ Aluminum -­‐ Antimony -­‐ Arsenic -­‐ Barium -­‐ Cadmium -­‐ Chromium -­‐ Copper -­‐ Iron -­‐ Lead -­‐ Magnesium -­‐ Manganese -­‐ Mercury -­‐ Nickel -­‐ Selenium -­‐ Uranium Results for the above parameters were tested for both source water and tap water on eight separate sample dates with no exceedances. The last test dates for source and tap water were 17 September 2011 and 17 November 2013, respectively (DOEC, 2014a). Chlorination disinfection by-­‐products (DBPs)The presence of DBPs, that is, the chemical by-­‐product that forms when chlorine interacts with organic matter, has been an increasing concern across the province-­‐ with double the number of communities currently exceeding the acceptable levels compared to the year 2000 (White, 2012). The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality sets the maximum concentration at 80 μg/L for Haloacetic acids (HAAs) and 100 μg/L for Trihalomethanes (THMs) (Health Canada, 2012). Reports published on the provincial DOEC Water Resources Portal indicate that in every test since fall 2008, the treated water in Greenspond has consistently tested higher than Health 3 Tests indicate pH is too acidic, i.e. 6.5 and below on pH scale 12 Canada recommended levels for HAA compounds, with levels reaching as high as 368.92 µg/L. From spring 2009 to spring 2010 (five test dates in total), THM levels consistently exceeded those set by Health Canada, with the highest level reaching 120.75 µg/L (DOEC, 2014a). Key informant perspectives To be honest, we may be high in the HAAs and the THMs sometimes, but it’s not really a concern because the town doesn’t have the money to put in a big filtration system. So it is almost like, unless the provincial government comes up with the money to put in a filtration system, it’s like our hands are tied. Because all we have is chlorine as a disinfectant, that’s it. There is nothing else. -­‐ Municipal perspective Langelier Index (LI) The Langelier Index indicates the degree of saturation of calcium carbonate in water. A negative reading indicates that water will have a tendency to corrode the distribution system; a positive reading means water will tend to deposit calcium carbonate in the distribution system; and a LI near zero means that the water will be neither corrosive nor calcium forming (DOEC, 2014b). The result from the DOEC testing indicates that the LI in Greenspond has ranged from -­‐5.27 to -­‐7.66 over the past 13 years, which suggests that this could be potentially harmful to the water lines (DOEC, 2014a). Key informant perspectives The problem of not balancing the pH the way it should be is that it eats the copper pipes. And every copper pipe in Greenspond is in danger of dissolving… I don’t think that in a small municipality that anyone has the expertise to make the water system as safe as it could be, nor do I think the equipment is in place to do it. When you have a water system that is corroding the copper pipes, something is wrong. – Resident Infrastructure and operations Existing infrastructure Currently, every residence is connected to the town water supply. Prior to 1984, residents utilized personal wells or concrete lined reservoirs; however, none of these older water sources are still in use. As described above, the main water line extends from Shambler’s Cove Pond for 200 metres to the causeway and then it runs for two kilometres underwater until it reaches Greenspond Island. Once it reaches the town it branches off to services the various residential areas. The water source at Shambler’s Pond is pumped through a small building approximately 50 metres from the pond where disinfection takes place via chlorine gas. The pump house is a secured building and there is clear signage around the pond that indicates it as a protected, municipal water supply. There is no backup water supply, other than what feeds into Shambler’s Pond, but as stated previously, it was noted by one interviewee that supply has never been an issue. The town’s pump house is equipped with a generator and a backup 13 pump, should the primary pump ever fail. The generator provides back up power during electrical outages to maintain water supply at these times and the water operator(s) test the generator four times a year to ensure it remains operable. The main reason for this is to maintain water pressure at the fire hydrants in the event of a fire. Drinking water operations in Greenspond are covered by two people: the Town Manager, who is a full time employee, and the part time Maintenance Worker. Several forms of disinfection exist in NL, including chloramines, ozone, mixed oxidants, and ultraviolet (UV) light (DOEC, 2014c). Greenspond uses chlorination–the most prevalent disinfection method in NL–in the form of chlorine gas (i.e. sodium hypochlorite). The chlorine residuals are checked daily from the Town Office and other locations around town. If the weather permits, the pump house, which houses the chlorine disinfection system, is also checked on a daily basis. In the winter months it is easier to gauge how much chlorine is required because the snow and cold temperatures stabilize the pond and inhibit bacterial growth. One informant suggests that, in the winter, two bottles of chlorine gas will last for approximately two months. The pump house’s system automatically switches to a second bottle of gas once the first bottle is empty. Given this, the water operators ensure that there is one full bottle at all times, replacing them as they are used. Finally, the water line is flushed every spring, typically in May, and again at the end of August. If there happens to be a BWA in the summer, then the line is flushed until the problem is removed. Generally speaking, there are few issues related to the drinking water infrastructure and operations, as stated by interview participants. However, a few challenges will be elaborated on below. Prior to discussing these, it should be noted that participant accounts suggest that the initial costs of installing the water system in 1984 were very high, which is one of the reasons that it took so long to be fully completed. Key informant perspective There are no big concerns with the water delivery system, which pumps the water from across the causeway to residents. The initial cost of installation was a problem…let’s say it cost…oh, I’m afraid to say what it cost. It cost in the tune of 5 million dollars to put the system in, and that was in the early 80s. The causeway came in 82 and in 84 we started to put in the water. It was the early 90s before we finished putting in all the water. The water and sewer were in different phases. So our system is relatively new as opposed to other towns. – Municipal representative Challenges For the most part, the water system in Greenspond provides residents with drinking water of adequate quality; however, the system faces several challenges of varying severity. The following is a brief summary of infrastructure challenges in the Greenspond water system, based on key informant interviews. 14 Chlorination •
Finding the right levels of chlorine is a challenge in surface water systems because there is a great deal of variability in source water conditions, which are heavily influenced by seasonal climatic fluctuations and extreme weather events. While interviewees state that Shambler’s Cove Pond is not affected by extreme weather events in the same way as some coastal communities (i.e. it is not vulnerable to salt water intrusion or coastal erosion and flooding), the water supply is still affected by changes in the weather, which can occasionally make it difficult to achieve the necessary chlorine residuals. However, as one respondent indicated, this is a challenge facing all communities with surface water systems. Another challenge noted by interviewees is that the chlorine used as a disinfectant is a highly dangerous substance to work with, requiring two people present when changing bottles. It is also increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain the chemical in Greenspond since the distributer in Hare Bay moved to St. John’s. The process of picking up chlorine bottles in St. John’s, which, for safety reasons, requires two drivers in the vehicle, is more expensive than the chlorine gas itself. Key informant perspectives Sometimes we have such low chlorine readings, especially into August when the water temperature warms up. Chlorine levels then, for some reason, may drop, overnight. And sometimes, when we flush the lines, when they test the water if they find anything in the water the next day, then there is going to be a boil water order. We have been caught by that. – Municipal representative Waterlines: dead ends, leaks and cross connections •
The main concerns with respect to waterlines in Greenspond are leaks, dead ends, and cross connections. The Town Manager suggests that these issues are to a great extent unavoidable when dealing with a municipal drinking water system. Dead ends arise because of the layout of the houses within the community, particularly in houses that are down a lane way, a considerable distance from the main line and where the homeowners in question are low water users. The only solution for this is to regularly flush the line at this connection. Leaks are described as an inevitable consequence of having a system that is over 20 years old, especially in the presence of acidic water. Curb stops and locations where there are joins in the water line are particularly vulnerable to leaks. Leak detection is by far the most expensive aspect of repairing leaks, and greater leak detection tools would be invaluable to the community. A cross connection is defined as an actual or potential connection between a potable source of water, such as municipally supplied water, and a non-­‐potable source. These connections can lead to problems such as backflow, where fluid moves in an undesirable direction in water system (City of St. John’s, n.d.). Currently, there is no official cross connection 15 prevention program in Greenspond, and while there are numerous places in the town where cross connections exist, the chances of salt water getting into the system (unless it is forced into it) are very low because the drinking water system is above sea level. One major backflow incident occurred at the fish plant, when salt water was pumped back into the municipal drinking water supply. This case was deemed to be caused by negligence on the part of plant workers, and the plant management were given a warning from the town to prevent such an incident from reoccurring in the future. In regards to establishing a cross connection program for residents and town buildings, one representative stated that this would be too difficult to implement because it would require physically going into people’s homes and inspecting their systems. Key informant perspective We do have some problems with dead ends. And that is just the nature of the beast. The way the town works is like the fingers on your hand. The ideal thing would be for the water to be looped around so that the water is always moving. But if you have got someone living down a lane, 200 feet from the mainline and they don’t use much water for laundry or that type thing, they only just run their tap... When it’s not moving as much we have to go and flush the line. I’m talking at least once a month. That’s just done from the curb stop, and the fire hydrant we’ll flush it from there. –
Municipal representative A couple of years ago we had a leak before Christmas, on Boxing Day we were repairing a leak that was 22 feet underground. We had to bring in an outside contractor. Christmas day, we just said forget it. We’ll just stay home, and we should have enough water to get us through, if not, we’ll deal with it. Our line as you can imagine is 2 km before it gets to the first house, and it crosses the causeway. We had no idea where it was. We had gone to Brookfield ice cream to get some food dye, we had a 5 gallon bucket of food dye that we were going to put through the system in the line, then we would have seen it in the salt water as it percolated out. But it happened that there was a light frost and we found it on the 23rd. The cost of that one leak was $ 20 K, and most of that we spent on leak detection. – Municipal representative We had a problem with our fish plant with a cross connection… the fish plant still operates. What they were doing was priming one of their pumps, to get it to start going, with freshwater. What had happened was that their pump put in more pressure than what the town water supplied. They were putting 60 lbs of pressure, they put salt water back into our lines. They did it, and then they did it again about 10 years later, because of course, people have a way of getting slack at things after a while. We don’t have a person going around all the time checking for cross connections. So, we went down and had to say to them “guys if it ever happens again, we are absolutely turning off your water, whether peak production or not”. We spoke with the management there and they said that there was a way around this, and that they could do it better. – Municipal representative Human resources: •
The major issue with human resources and drinking water operations in Greenspond is one of succession planning for the future. Of the two individuals responsible for water operations, only one (the Town Manager) has received Operator Education, Training, and Certification (OETC) from DOEC. The Town Manager is a key asset in Greenspond’s water system management because he has over 27 years of experience, and is intimately aware of every piece of pipe that has been put into the ground. There is a challenge in terms of what 16 the town will do in the future when the Town Manager moves on from this position; although many of the changes made to the water lines are recorded on the as-­‐built drawings directly, thus making it possible for the Maintenance Worker (or future employees) to find curb stops and valves in the manager’s absence. Addressing infrastructure challenges Greenspond has received capital works funding in the last five years for water system infrastructure installation, and according to one participant, for a small town they have been very successful in obtaining this financial support. The Town Manager suggests that the best way to do this is maintain a positive relationship with the MHA and the ministers of the day. This will be discussed in greater detail in the following section. Currently, Council has no plans of upgrading to a more advanced filtration system, which is often touted as the logical next step in reducing DBPs by removing greater amounts of organics in the source water prior to disinfection. The town management is not overly concerned with upgrading their filtration, particularly because they are skeptical that this would be a solution that meets their needs, in addition to the fact that the municipality could not shoulder the burden of paying 100% of the maintenance costs of the new system. It was noted by one participant that this scenario is widespread in rural NL. Efforts towards improving infrastructure in Greenspond appear to be focussed toward finding better leak detection measures. The town is aware of leak detection expertise that exists through DOEC, and they will be looking further into this in the future. Key informant perspectives We would have to contribute 10% of the cost, and where no one has come up with a reasonably priced solution we could be looking at spending upwards of 50 to 60K of our money…and we don’t even really know, because there hasn’t been a solution pitched to address our needs. – Municipal representative It’s basically about doing the best with what we have. Financially, it’s often not feasible to provide every community with a treatment facility. It’s about doing a good job. I mean the thing of it is, these towns can run their tap water, it’s safe to drink, they can brush their teeth with it. That’s my role, to make sure that is safe to drink. And if you choose to drink it or not, well that is your choice. We get a lot of people lobbying their opinion, saying things like “oh, the tap water is not fit to drink!” or “Oh my God, I wouldn’t feed that to my dog!” I get that all the time. And that is just my standard response. Sometimes people just like to complain, and I mean you’d get that even in Toronto. It’s just some people’s perception of what is coming out of the tap. They don’t realize that it is safe, and if they didn’t have it, what would they do? And when dealing with this in rural NL, the question is not only how they would get the money to install this infrastructure, but how are they going to pay to maintain it? That might be the most ideal situation .but not what we have. – Provincial government perspective 17 Figure 3. Causeway leading to Greenspond Policy and governance Ensuring the safety of drinking water in Canada is a responsibility shared between federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments (Health Canada, 2012a). The following section details the roles and responsibilities that each tier of government plays in the governance of drinking water. Federal In Canada, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of drinking water supplies is shared by the various levels of government. The principal responsibility of ensuring the safety of drinking water generally rests with the provinces and territories, while municipalities usually ensure the day-­‐to-­‐day operations of treatment facilities and distribution systems. Federally, Health Canada works in collaboration with the provinces and territories, through the Federal-­‐Provincial-­‐Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, to develop the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) The GCDWQ are published by Health Canada and used by all Canadian jurisdictions (provinces, territories and the federal government) as a basis to establish their own enforceable requirements for drinking water quality. 18 Provincial The provincial government is responsible for ensuring public access to safe drinking water based on the provisions of four main legislative acts: the Municipalities Act (1999), the Municipal Affairs Act (1995), the Environmental Protection Act (2002), and the Water Resources Act (2002). As stated, where these acts apply to drinking water, the province of NL follows the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. There are a total of 478 public water sources across the province where this service is provided via four provincial departments that share responsibility in managing these public supplies through the Multi-­‐
Barrier Strategic Action Plan (MBSAP) (DOEC, 2014c). The MBSAP consists of three levels of governance that are outlined in the 2013 Drinking Water Safety in Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Report (Table 3). The four government departments most directly responsible for drinking water in NL are: The Department of Environment and Conservation, Department of Health and Community Services (DOHCS), Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs (MIGA) and Service NL (or Government Services-­‐ GS). These departments’ specific roles and responsibilities in implementing MBSAP are also described in detail in the 2013 Drinking Water Safety in Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Report (Ibid.; Table 4). Table 3. Multi-­‐Barrier Strategic Action Plan -­‐ Three levels of governance Level 1 -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Source water protection Drinking water treatment Drinking water distribution Level 2 -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Monitoring Data management and reporting Inspection and enforcement Operator education, training, and certification Corrective measures Level 3 -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Legislative and policy frameworks Public involvement and awareness Guidelines, standards, and objectives Research and Development (DOEC, 2014c) 19 Figure 4. Town of Greenspond 20 Table 4. Roles and responsibilities of provincial departments managing drinking water in NL Department of Environment and Conservation-­‐ Water Resources Management Division -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Acts as the lead department Regulates development activities within protected public water supplies Samples and reports on chemical and physical drinking water quality parameters in public water supplies from source to tap Administers OETC program Hosts Annual Clean and Safe Drinking Water Workshop Department of Health and Community Services (DOHCS) -­‐
-­‐
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs (MIGA) -­‐
-­‐
Responsible for NL Public Health Laboratory and regional drinking water testing locations where municipal and private water supplies are tested for bacteriological indicators E. coli and total coliform bacteria Conducts drinking water safety initiatives and review guidelines related to water which to enhance health and prevent disease Provides financial support to communities for the provision of drinking water infrastructure Involved in NL Drinking Water Safety Initiative and installation of Potable Water Dispensing Units Service NL (or -­‐ Samples and reports bacteriological water quality Government parameters in public water supplies from source to Services-­‐ GS) tap -­‐ Environmental Health Officers contact municipality/LSD immediately if sample tests indicate E. coli and/or total coliform bacteria or if chlorine residual is inadequate to implement BWA (Adapted from Will, 2014) 21 Provincial public reporting DOEC releases several public reports relating to drinking water quality (DOEC, 2014c; Table 5). Table 5. DOEC public drinking water quality reporting Seasonal Community Drinking Water Quality Reports -
Exceedance Report: -
A report delivered via fax or email to communities immediately after water quality laboratory results exceed the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Annual Drinking Water Safety in NL Report: -
Provincial report released annually Describes the province’s activities under the MBSAP Drinking Water Quality web documents -
The Water Resource Management Division’s website contains a regularly updated online tool with information on drinking water quality See: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/whatsnew/index.html -
-
An interpreted report of seasonal drinking water monitoring Indicates parameters that exceed the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Provided to all communities with a public water supply (Adapted from Will, 2014) Municipal The Town of Greenspond is governed by the Municipalities Act (1999). The town operates a public water supply system and property owners who receive this service pay an annual water tax, as described ins.130 and 131 of the Act (Ibid.). This tax is currently a fixed amount determined by council and is paid annually. In 2013, the water rate per home was $268.00 per year this has remained static for a number of years. Greenspond’s water system services a population of less than 500 residents, which means it is a “very small system” according to the categories described by the provincial government (DOEC, 2014c). The municipality does not have a formal water management plan but the Town Manager, who is also the chief water operator, attends council meetings. The municipality’s main priority with respect to drinking water is to develop a more efficient means of finding leaks in the system. Although an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) was completed in 2009-­‐10 (Town of Greenspond, 2010), it made little reference to water issues beyond acknowledging the challenges of waste water treatment and obtaining a qualified water and sewer operator. The Town Manager has indicated that the ICSP has seen limited use; however, a town plan is being developed that will likely consider how to address some the town’s most critical water issues. 22 As described above, water operations are performed by the Town Manager and the Maintenance Worker. This includes: keeping daily log books of residuals and any other maintenance performed and tracking water quality reports. The municipality is also responsible for testing chlorine residuals at various points along the entire extent of the water line, which is performed on a daily basis. The majority (85%) of public surface water supplies in the province are designated as ”protected” under the Water Resources Act (2002). Municipalities are responsible for submitting an ”Application for Protection of a Water Supply Area” to the Water Resources Management Division of DOEC in order to achieve this designation. In addition to the visible signage, this designation offers protection from development, mandated surveillance by the municipality, and periodic inspections by a DOEC representative (DOEC, 2013b). Shambler’s Cove Pond has protected status, and given its proximity to the main road, most of the pond is visible from this vantage point. Accordingly, due to the visibility of public notices, the pond’s proximity to the road, and the acknowledgement that the pond is Greenspond’s sole drinking water supply source, there is a high degree of informal enforcement of the pond’s protected status. This also results in a public sense of ownership, at least as far as protecting Shambler’s Cove Pond from potential pollution and degradation is concerned. Federal, provincial, municipal relationships There is little regular interaction between federal and municipal representatives on issues of local water supply governance. Thus, the focus here is on relationships between provincial and municipal governments, as expressed in the participant interviews. A provincial representative interviewee indicated that there is a good working relationship amongst the various provincial departments responsible for drinking water, which includes DOEC, GS, MIGA and CHS. These relationships are best described as ones that function well on an as-­‐needs basis, but there is no regular communication mechanism between individuals in different departments unless there is a specific concern. Generally there are positive interactions between specific individuals in the provincial government and the Town of Greenspond. There is a particularly good relationship between the town and GS, who are in fairly regular contact with each other. With regards to the regular water quality reporting done by DOEC, one respondent suggested that the lack of clear expectations and direction for communities to improve their drinking water has yielded reporting efforts that have no tangible purpose for small rural communities. The process by which DOEC delivers these reports and engages with communities needs improvement, especially if changes in policy and improvements in municipal drinking water systems are to be made. While Greenspond has been successful in leveraging funding for various projects over the last decade, they have done so in part by maintaining a good relationship with their MHA and the government of the day. As one respondent stated, the politicking involved in the 23 decisions around infrastructure, that is what (or who) is funded or not, is inevitable. Because of this, municipal leaders would be wise to ensure that they maintain close relationships with the province’s governing political executive. Key informant perspectives It’s all an open relationship between us, MIGA, DOEC and HCS. I can’t say that I would speak these people on a weekly basis or monthly basis, but if there is ever an issue, we can get together and try to work something out. They’ll ask my input on it, I’ll ask their input. I’m only speaking for my relationships, but in my experience it has been good... And we’ll work with the Environment, especially if a community wants to add more hook-­‐ups to their system. Talking directly is not a regular thing, but when something comes up, it’s a functioning relationship. It really comes on as an as-­‐needed basis. – Provincial government representative It’s great to produce twice a year a report about our water standards, but not ultimately useful unless you are going to come up with some suggestions and solutions towards these. But the DOEC is not funding solutions. DOEC is like a regulatory body, but they don’t issue any fines or make suggestions. They just present their data, and say “here is what it is”. It’s like a document that is put in one hand, taken by the other hand and put in the filing cabinet. In that respect, I don’t find them helpful... it has come to a point now that in the province, there are only one or two towns that are the exception, that until someone comes and says “listen you’ve got to do this” it gets put on the back burner. -­‐ Municipal representative We play our cards right, and that’s the safest way to put it. Because if you are at odds with your MHA, I don’t care how big of a desire or need you are in, you are on the wrong side of the government. And then you might not see any money for any capital works or very little, unless it is an emergency. -­‐ Municipal representative Public perception, awareness, demand and practice Perception Water quality In the participant interviews, residents’ primary concern with regard to the quality of water is discolouration and chlorine taste. The results presented here are based on a small sample of two interviews with resident participants, as well as insights derived from municipal staff and provincial government participants. As stated, the major water quality challenge for most residents interviewed is the chlorine taste that remains from the disinfectant treatment and, to a lesser extent, the discoloration that is especially noticeable in the fall and the spring. For the most part, however, year round residents appear to be satisfied with the state of their drinking water. Any complaints brought to the town’s attention regarding water quality are almost exclusively made by seasonal residents who stay in Greenspond over the summer months. One exception to this is residents living closest to the causeway who receive water with a slightly higher concentration of chlorine, and, because of this, experience some issues with their laundry. It should be noted, though, that this is an infrequent occurrence in Greenspond. Another related issue noted by residents is that sometimes the chlorine 24 discolours their salt meat during cooking, but this is regarded by the town has a minor concern for residents overall. It was noted by multiple participants, especially by those living in the community before the causeway was built, that the current drinking water supply in Greenspond is a vast improvement compared to the water available prior to 1984. Residents are content with their water because they are assured of its safety and its supply, and given the historical condition of their drinking water systems, the water today is described as the least of their worries. Further, one interview participant states that while he is hesitant to suggest that residents in rural communities should have lower expectations for their drinking water, in the greater context of their lives, they do not exhibit concern about the quality of the water they are receiving. This informant suggests that for residents of Greenspond, the quality of their potable water at present is the least of their worries. For the most part, many residents in Greenspond are not overly concerned about BWAs. Most residents have experienced them before and despite them, they still view Shambler’s Cove Pond as a good source of water. Furthermore, residents in Greenspond are used to drinking untreated water at their cabins outside of the community. As will be discussed below, residents do not perceive any major threats to their drinking water in Greenspond. The exception to this is seasonal residents, particularly those from outside of NL, who are less familiar with having BWAs issued on their water. Seasonal residents typically require greater assistance from the town management in explaining the process of dealing with a BWA and why it was issued. Key informant perspectives I guess now where we are hooked in with Shambler’s Cove, we have got plenty of water. To my point of view, I think that it is better than when we were younger. There were times when we were rationing water, otherwise your parents would have to go to the mainland in boats to bring back the water. – Resident/business owner BWAs are not perceived as the end of the world…I mean there are towns in this area that have been on BWA for years, for over 20 years, and I am sure that there are still people going to their taps. But they have cabins up on the same ponds, like you were at the cabin in Indian Bay, they have been on BWA for years and years. And there are more cabins in the Indian Bay area than there are house outside of it. And people would just go down to the pond to get water at the cabin. It’s probably the mindset. I think that maybe people in rural Newfoundland have come not to expect the highest quality water, not that they should expect any less. But they have come used to not having the same standard of that clear, pristine water. I might be wrong, but never does anyone come to the office here with a bottle of water and say, “Look at what came through my tap!” I have never heard of it. – Municipal representative Government The interviews provided little indication of any issues between residents and the municipality, although this may be due in part to the small sample size of people. There is strong local support in protecting Shambler’s Cove Pond, and it is evident that residents are comfortable with addressing town management because the majority of residents are 25 in support municipal efforts of managing and protecting their drinking water. Likewise, given the small population size of Greenspond, it was stated in one interview that most residents have no issue approaching town management directly with any issues they have with their drinking water. One resident suggested that the provincial government needs to look into alternative approaches with respect to their chlorination protocols. From his perspective, it does not seem very scientific to simply increase chlorine levels as a means of assuring safety. Likewise, the same participant stated that there should be greater focus on adjusting the chemistry of the water so that it does not erode the pipes and connections. Key informant perspective I think that the government should establish a system where they know the water is safe. And maybe more inspectors. But coming out and saying that “ there is no chlorine here, add more chlorine”. I don’t that is a solution. I don’t think that is good science. Or scientific at all. I don’t think that is the answer, but I don’t know what the answer is… I think that government should be focused on what is healthy water, not water that is corroding the copper pipes in Greenspond or any other small municipality. There must be a way of balancing the chemistry of the water so that is not happening. -­‐ Resident Threats The key informant interviews indicated that residents did not perceive anything that was immediately threatening their drinking water. There was a problem in the past with seagulls landing on Shambler’s Cove Pond, but this was resolved when the town laid ropes across the pond. Issues of discolouration and unpleasant chlorine taste were noted, but it was suggested by one resident that this did not affect the safety of the water; rather, these are just mildly unpleasant. Concerns related to high levels of DBPs, in particular HAA concentrations, were not expressed by residents. This suggests two distinct possibilities: either HAA levels do not concern residents or residents are not fully aware of the potential hazards of these chemical compounds. It is likely a combination of both, but this will be discussed in the following section on resident awareness. The municipal officials and management are aware of high levels of HAAs, but there are no immediate plans to resolve this through a more advanced filtration system. Finally, as it will be discussed in the demands and practices section, multiple residents suggested that while they are not aware of anything in particular threatening their potable water, these same residents use some form of personal filtration device or purchase bottled water. 26 Key informant perspective Sometimes the seabirds would get into the water, but the town would go and put those ropes across. And if I felt that way, I would boil it. I mean I have never stopped cooking with it. I mean I buy it for me and my husband to drink, and we will use three of those big bottles [5 Gallon] every two weeks. But aside for that…I mean his sister always drink the water. I doubt they’d boil it. I mean, I think there are more things to worry about than the water that is coming in. – Resident/business owner The water is discoloured, but that is because of the bog. There is nothing unhealthy about it. I run the water through a filter at the house. I use a Brita filter for drinking water and I am putting a charcoal filter on the fridge. I don’t have any problems with the drinking water. -­‐ Resident Awareness The municipality and residents are aware that the municipal drinking water needs to have the appropriate levels of chlorine in order to ensure that potable water is free from bacteriological contaminants. As stated by one interviewee, after the Walkerton Tragedy in southern Ontario in the early 2000s, there was a heightened awareness about the importance of chlorination across the country. Accordingly, a possible reciprocating effect of hyper-­‐vigilant chlorination practice over the last decade is that currently many small communities in this province are facing increased presence of DBPs in their drinking water system. The water operators in Greenspond are aware that there are elevated levels of HAAs in their system, and the DOEC water quality reports are posted in public view at the Town Hall. While some residents are likely aware of the problem of DBPs, or, at the very least, are concerned with the municipality using chlorine gas4 as a disinfectant, the degree to which the general public is aware of this issue remains unclear. However, as stated by one resident, there is far greater awareness about what is in the water today than there was years ago, and those who express any concern about the drinking water in Greenspond are likely to use personal filtration systems or purchase bottled water, which is available in the community 4 Discontent has been expressed regarding chlorination as the primary means of water treatment in Greenspond, but at the same time, one resident acknowledges that there are constraints, both financial, legislative and perhaps imaginative as well, that prevent communities from utilizing alternatives to chlorine. In this sense, there is some admission–by–residents in particular-­‐ that at present, chlorination is the best that communities can do to treat their water. 27 Key informant perspectives You have to remember, back when Walkerton happened, there was heightened community awareness-­‐ it was almost like a wakeup call and people became more knowledgeable about it. Boil orders were a little more common in the early 2000s than they are now. – Provincial government representative I’d rather the municipality didn’t use chlorine. But what else are you going to use? UV is more expensive, but for the operators it’s probably a lot safer. It’s dangerous, handling chlorine, it’s nothing to fool with. I filter my water, but I don’t think it would do you any harm drinking right from the tap. Unless, well, when you are coming off the causeway there is quite a bit of chlorine there. By the time you get to this end of the harbour, there is not much. –Resident So as much as people are complaining now, and I mean, there was just as much in the water then as there is now. I guess years ago you weren’t as up on everything that you are now – Resident/business owner Residential demand and practice Overall, the residents interviewed indicate that they are pleased with the quantity of the municipally supplied water, and from their perspective, it is a vast improvement from the reservoirs and private wells, which were used prior to 1984. There were issues in the past with rationing the water supply, and even instances where people would have to row over to the mainland to retrieve water from Shambler’s Cove Pond when supplies on the island were diminished. The residents interviewed stated that they were generally satisfied with the quality of their water. However, they also indicated that have gotten into the habit of drinking bottled water or using a personal filtration system because of the chlorine taste of the town drinking water. Many residents pick up 5L gallon bottles that can be refilled at one of the community convenience stores, which has an industrial-­‐grade dispenser supplying reverse-­‐osmosis water. It was noted that water sales at the convenience store increase slightly during a BWA, within the range of 15 to 20%. Another reason for using bottled water suggested by one resident was that it is better for his coffee maker. 28 Key informant perspectives It’s fair. I have no problems, but with us, my husband has health issues, we don’t drink the tap water. I’ll use it to cook, wash and brush your teeth and whatnot, but as for drinking where my husband needs to drink a lot of water we buy that [the reverse osmosis water that Mary sells at the store]. I feel it’s safer for his sake. But if I was in a hurry and passing by a tap, I wouldn’t mind drinking a glass of water, I mean we have all our life. -­‐ Resident/business owner And maybe Greenspond is unlike some other places, whether if the water in Shambler’s Pond is that much better quality and the older people here, and by older I mean people in their 60s, 70s, 80s, they grew up when you had to use two buckets to retrieve water and put it in a barrel, on their back porch we’ll say for argument’s sake. For those people water, water is not even on their radar of things to worry about. If it was a boil water advisory, I’d say that less than 10 % of the population would worry about it. I put it on the number two channel, I advertise it in town, I’ll put it a notice on the bulletin board outside the street. I talked to the lady who owns the store, and she says that sales will go up a little bit, but not a lot-­‐ 15 -­‐20%, but not what you would anticipate. – Municipal representative Industrial, commercial and institutional demand According to town management, there are limited issues with respect to industrial, commercial and institutional demand on the municipal drinking water. The fish plant is the only high water user in Greenspond and, other than the one backflow incident, they have not significantly affected the municipal water supply in recent years. There are two small convenience stores in Greenspond, but these businesses are not high water users, nor has the town experienced problems with these businesses from a drinking water perspective. In terms of institutional demand, there is one small school in Greenspond that includes kindergarten to grade three. There is a bottled water dispenser located at the school, and it is noted by one interviewee as unlikely that the students are drinking water from the tap. Additionally, there is a bottle water dispenser unit located in the Town Hall. 29 Conclusion As stated throughout this report, the current drinking water system is largely considered to be a vast improvement compared to what existed prior to the construction of the causeway. Compared to other rural communities in the immediate region, the in-­‐ground infrastructure is relatively new, however, there are regular repairs needed– particularly around curb stops. On the whole, the system is well suited to the size and demand of the community, and the main improvement that the town requires is better leak detection strategies. There are some potential challenges related to succession planning if and when the current Town Manager eventually leaves that position. However, considering that the as-­‐builts are modified to reflect any changes in in-­‐ground infrastructure in Greenspond there exists physical record of changes in the system over time. Additionally, it may also be reasonable to assume that for any community with a staff member so experienced that it will be a significant learning curve for someone to learn the system anew, regardless of whether they had a specific succession plan in place. Challenges also exist regarding the level of guidance provided by DOEC. In particular, interview informants state their needs to a greater direction provided through specific policies aimed at helping communities improve their water quality. This of course is a challenge where these decisions come from senior officials, as opposed to DOEC itself, but the issue remains that current DOEC reporting remains “toothless” at best in terms of invoking positive change for rural drinking water quality. There also appear to be discrepancies between some residents’ understanding of DBPs and the reports produced by DOEC. Regardless, the municipality has not identified DPBs as a pressing concern for their municipal water system, or alternatively, recognizes that the optimal solution of an advanced filtration system is not economically feasible for Greenspond at this time. Ultimately, as one respondent stated, “making it work” in small communities–whether “it” is addressing drinking water systems or any other aspect of planning and development–is a function of balancing the budget and managing people’s expectations of living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. On the whole, there are key elements that have kept Greenspond functioning as a community, including: the initial construction of the causeway in 1982, a high number of seasonal residents, continued employment in the fishery, and effective town management. However, like any small community in rural NL, the future of the town is challenged by: an aging population, fewer young people being raised in the community, and a decreasing tax base as a result of these two key trends. All of this plays a part in determining the future of Greenspond’s drinking water management and planning, and the community itself. 30 Key informant perspectives What is sustainable? I mean some people would say that we are not sustainable now, with 300 people. I mean I went to meetings in Vancouver last year, with 300 people around the coffee table pretty much. And I didn’t have to Google where Victoria BC was or anything like that. But they were like “where the hell is Greenspond? Do people live in such a tiny community? And, why would you live there?” I guess it comes down to being content. – Municipal representative Main Suggestions by key informants moving in the future: -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
The provincial government, in particular DOEC, needs to focus on how to support communities in improving their drinking water based on DOEC assessments. There needs to be a greater move to action, as the current setup leads to frustration and complacency from the community standpoint. Further research into alternatives to chlorination, as well as provincial support in ensuring there is a more convenient location to acquire chlorine, in each region Municipalities and municipal leadership should develop and maintain good relationships with ministers and MHAs because this aids in the latter’s understanding of community’s needs and is important in leveraging funding 31 References DOEC (Department of Environment and Conservation). (2014a). Water resources portal. Retrieved from http://maps.gov.nl.ca/water/ DOEC. (2014b). Langlier index. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/quality/drinkingwater/langlier.html DOEC. (2014c). Drinking water safety in Newfoundland and Labrador: Annual report 2013. Water Resources Management Division. Government of NL. (2014). Drinking water safety in Newfoundland and Labrador: Annual report 2013. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/reports/drinking_water/annual_report_2
013.pdf DOEC. (2013). Boil water advisories. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/quality/drinkingwater/advisories.html DOEC, (2013). Management of protected water supply areas. Water Resources Management Division. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/quality/drinkingwater/pdf/Designation_P
rocess_Booklet_Mar_2013.pdf Government of NL. (2005). Canada-­‐Newfoundland and Labrador municipal rural infrastructure agreement 2005-­‐2012. Retrieved from http://www.miga.gov.nl.ca/publications/mrif/mrifagreementfinal.pdf Health Canada. (2012a). Environment and workplace health: Drinking water. Retrieved from http://www.hc-­‐sc.gc.ca/ewh-­‐semt/water-­‐eau/drink-­‐potab/index-­‐eng.php Health Canada. (2012b). Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Retrieved from http://www.hc-­‐sc.gc.ca/ewh-­‐semt/pubs/water-­‐eau/2012-­‐sum_guide-­‐
res_recom/index-­‐eng.php Mercer, N. (2011, September 27). Diggin' up uour roots ... Greenspond. The Gander Beacon. Retrieved from http://www.ganderbeacon.ca/Community/2011-­‐09-­‐27/article-­‐
2761246/Diggin-­‐Up-­‐Your-­‐Roots-­‐...-­‐Greenspond/1 Statistics Canada (2012) Greenspond, Newfoundland and Labrador (Code 1007054) and Division No. 7, Newfoundland and Labrador (Code 1007) (table,. census profile. 2011 census. (Catalogue no. 98-­‐316-­‐XWE). Ottawa, ON: 2011 Census of Population. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-­‐recensement/2011/dp-­‐
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E City of St. John’s (n.d.). Cross connections and black flow prevention. Department of Public Works and Parks, Environmental Services Division. Retrieved from 32 http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/training/adww/ruralreactions/01_jason_
phillips_cross_connection.pdf White, J. (2013, February 21). THM troubles grow in N.L. water supplies, tests show. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-­‐
labrador/thm-­‐troubles-­‐grow-­‐in-­‐n-­‐l-­‐water-­‐supplies-­‐tests-­‐show-­‐1.1341437 Provincial Legislation Referenced Environmental Protection Act, SNL 2002, c E-­‐14.2. Retrieved from http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/statutes/e14-­‐2.htm Municipal Affairs Act, SNL 1995, c M-­‐20.1. Retrieved from http://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/statutes/M20-­‐1.htm Municipalities Act, 1999, SNL 1999, c M-­‐24. Retrieved from http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/statutes/m24.htm Water Resources Act, SNL 2002, c W-­‐4.01. Retrieved from http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/statutes/w04-­‐01.htm 33 Appendices Appendix A. Case study methodology Case study Methodology Objective In depth profile of key issues, challenges and solutions related to public drinking water systems in rural NL. Methods • Semi structured key informant interviews (an interview guide will be used): *Note depending on size and human resources in the community the below informants may not be available o Water Operator (at least 1) o Town administrator (at least 1) o Mayor/Council/LSD Committee rep (at least 1) o Business owner/heavy users (~2-­‐3) § Include businesses that sell bottled water o Environmental or watershed groups (if they present) (at least 1) o Health office for community/region o Environmental Officer who tests water for that town o Residents § Best done in a focus group format (possibly by attending another meeting) § Seniors groups, family resource centres, youth groups, community groups, etc. • Review of documents o Project’s administrator/operator survey results o DOEC data on community/drinking water supplies o Development regulations and by laws related to water o Any studies done on drinking water/infrastructure o Any other pertinent drinking water related documents o Media articles (preliminary database on basecamp) • At least 3 days’ worth of interviews done with 1-­‐3 trips • At least 1 trip reporting back to the town and requesting feedback at a town council meeting/town hall meeting Requirement of Case Study Community • Community of 1000 or less • At least one per MNL region • On a public drinking water supply (mix of groundwater, source water and PWDU) 34 •
Willing to be part of study (most likely a town that answered the admin survey) Possible Topics • LSDs and Municipalities • PWDU • Community trying something new and working (alternatives/solutions) • Impact of industry/tourism/high water user • Regional water operators • Drought issues • Chronic/long term BWAs o How do towns with long term BWAs cope? • Compliance with BWAs • Aboriginal communities-­‐ Labrador issuesà training for operators, access to water workshops, capacity, infrastructure, sampling • Roadside springs • Metering • Aging infrastructure • High DBP’s • Chlorination issues • Real time water quality monitoring • DWQI/Langlier index • Use of bottled water/safety of bottles water • Bacteriological outbreak • Resident perceptions Community Contact *May vary, for example Theresa will require permission from the Nunatsiavut • Initial informal contact. • Formal letter of request to Mayor and Council/LSD committee • Follow up to confirm participation and identification of key contact in community • Discussion with key contact re methods, available documents, and arranging field visits • Circulation of report drafts to the town contact and arrangements for feed back visit Final Reports for Each Case Study • Each case study community will have an overall community case study outlining the state of the drinking water system, as well as individual topic based reports that are specifically related to drinking water issues or innovations in the community. What will be included in these reports will vary depending on the community and topics identified, however some basic requirements are described below. 35 •
•
•
The overall community reports should include: o 15-­‐30 pages (1.5 spacing) o Title page, table of contents o Introduction of community and their water system § Source water supply (GW/SW) § Types of infrastructure § Human resources (e.g. water operator) o Summary of findings according to research components (from both the background review and the interviews) § Source Water § Infrastructure § Policy/Governance § Public Perception, Awareness and Demand o Conclusions and Future Directions o References Community summary document o 3-­‐5 pages o Headings: § Introduction § Source Water § Infrastructure § Policy/Governance § Public Perception, Awareness and Demand § Conclusions and Future Directions o Minimum 1 image per page o Formatting instructions to come The topic based reports should include: o 3-­‐5 pages o Introduction of topic and significance to drinking water o Description of issue/innovation in the community o Description of the issue/innovation in the province wide context § If an innovation applicability of using the innovation in other parts of the province § If an innovation-­‐ has this been used in other parts of Canada/the world? Give examples. § If an issue-­‐ what has other places in Canada/the world done about this? o Conclusions o Recommendations for future research o References 36 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conducting Key Informant Interviews When contacting key informant interviews start with an e-­‐mail or phone call. If you do not hear back from the possible interviewee within a week then make a follow up phone call. We suggest making 3 attempts in total to contact the potential interviewees. Arrive on time and prepared for your interview. Make sure you have: a. 2 copies of the interview consent form (1 copy for you, 1 copy to be left with interviewee, make sure you and all interviewees sign both copies) b. Tape recorder fully charged-­‐ always ask and get on the consent form that this is ok c. Pen and paper d. Copy of the interview guide Before you begin the interview make sure you have the consent form signed and you have asked if you can record the interview, if not take notes to the best of your ability. When the interview is over thank them for their time and ask them if they would like a copy of the case study. Make sure to get your interviewees contact information so that you can follow up with them later when outputs of the project are available. Confirm how they would like to be communicated with in the future. 37 Appendix B. Interview guide Rural Drinking Water Project Interview Guide *It is likely there will be overlap between the questions, be conscious of linking questions together and following up on comments. *Should prepare questions in addition to the ones below specific to the case study community. These questions should be derived from the administrator/operator survey results and background research. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Section A: Background Information on Respondent 1. What town do you live in? o How long have you lived in your town? 2. What is your profession? What is your role in your community that relates to drinking water? o Are you a paid part time/full time position? A volunteer? A user? 3. How long have you been working/associated [with the subject town]? 4. Are you involved in any other organizations in your town not covered above? 38 1.
Section B: General Drinking Water Information *To be collected from all participants How would you describe the quality and quantity of your local drinking water? o Are you content with the drinking water quality in your community? o Do you like the taste/appearance? o Has your opinion on the drinking water quality changed overtime? 2.
In your opinion what is the general resident’s perception of the drinking water quality in your community? o In your opinion, are there any (widely held) misconceptions? 3.
Do you think your town’s drinking water is safe? o Are there any factors that you think may be affecting the safety or quality of drinking water in your community? 4.
Have you ever felt that the water system/source in your community as being vulnerable/facing particular threats? (If the respondent struggles with this-­‐-­‐e.g. presence of disinfectant bi-­‐products, point or non-­‐point pollution, physical obstructions in water source, aging or inadequate infrastructure...for a complete list see pgs. 12-­‐24 DPSIR document) *NB-­‐ It is key here to have a good working knowledge of those risks/threats for community in question based on the community profile at the Water Resources Portal* o Under what circumstances did these threats emerge? (e.g. after a particular evident, access to a new information, speaking with a public official etc.) o To what extent do any threats apply to you individually as opposed to a risk for the entire community? 5.
How do you determine whether your current water system is safe, or conversely under threat? I.e. What sources of information (people, government, scientific lit..) would you regularly use in determining the safety and quality of your water system/source? o Has government been helpful in identifying threats within your water system/water source? 39 6.
Have your perceptions towards the risks associated with water quality changed over time? If yes, how so? 7.
What are the positive aspects of the publicly supplied water in your town? 8.
Name any negative impacts of the public drinking water on your town? (impacts can be economic, social, environmental etc) 9.
What other sources of drinking water do people in your town use other than the publically supplied drinking water (e.g. spring water, bottled water)? 10.
What have been the challenges your community has faced in the past regarding drinking water? o Does the number of Boil Water Advisories in your community concern you? 11.
What would you consider the emerging or more recent challenges for your community’s drinking water supply? 12.
What kind of development/land use is there in the vicinity of your community’s water suppl(y/ies)? o In the greater watershed/catchment? 13.
Is your water source designated as a protected public water supply area? o Are there any activities that are prohibited in or around your water supply? o If so, do you think these prohibited activities are appropriate? §
Are they enforced? Are they violated? o Are there any activities that should be prohibited in your town’s drinking water source that pose a risk to human health? 14.
Have there been problems with the water supply and/or delivery system(s)? Including source water, the pump house, treatment/ filtration or distribution systems? o Have they been addressed/resolved? If so, how? If not, why? o Is this problem(s) a reoccurring problem? 15.
Are you aware of any research that has been done on the local water supply? 40 o Has there been an evaluation of the sustainability/capacity of the water supply? Hydrological surveys? Other studies? 16.
Do changes in weather ever impact your town’s drinking water supply? o If so, in what ways? o Is there a plan to mitigate these impacts? Are there adaptation strategies in place? o Describe any changes in water quality/availability that occurs seasonally and/or after extreme weather events. 17.
In what ways do you think being “rural” affects your community’s drinking water quality and supply? 41 Section C: Role Specific Questions Water Operator Water System, Maintenance and Operations 1. What is the local source of drinking water? o Is it the only one? Is there a back-­‐up supply? 2. If your town is designated as a protected public water supply area: o Why did your town choose to designate as a protected public water supply area? o How is the water supply managed/protected? o Do you think source protection measures are adequate? o Has the council tried any new methods of reducing violations of the town’s rules/regulations? 3. How long ago was your town’s public water supply (source) developed? Can you tell me anything about the historical development of the drinking water suppl(y/ies) locally? 4. How would you describe the level and quality of water infrastructure in your community? o Type of infrastructure o Scale appropriate for design capacity? o What year was it installed? Have upgrades been made since installation? 5. Do you have water treatment? o How long have these systems been in place? Is everything currently working? o What kind of treatment system do you use? o Are you happy with it? o Is there sufficient disinfecting agent available? Has the disinfecting agent expired? 6. Do you have water filtration do you use? 42 o How long have these systems been in place? Is everything currently working? o What kind of filtration is used? o Are you happy with it? 7. How is drinking water currently delivered in the community? Do all residents have piped services? o What proportion of your community households rely on private wells? 8. Are there any high risk public facilities supplied by the public drinking water system? o Daycare facility? o Hospital? o Seniors home, long-­‐term facility? o School (K-­‐12)? 9. Are there any high water users using the public supply? o Fish plants, other industry? o Does this impact the quality or quantity of the drinking water? 10. Is there a designated workshop area for drinking water system operation and maintenance? o Are there appropriate tools in the workshop to perform basic maintenance? o Are there operating and maintenance manuals for the treatment equipment, pumps, etc. readily available? o Do you have spare parts, consumables, maintenance kits, etc? 11. How often do you check for chlorine residual? 12. Do you have a regular system cleaning program? 13. How many (if any) emergency repairs have been required completed in the last 2 years? o Is any emergency repair kit readily available to keep the system operational in an emergency situation (such as back-­‐up pumps?) 43 14. Are there any re-­‐occurring operational problems? 15. Do you have a cross-­‐connections control program (Connection to prevent back-­‐
siphoning and/or backpressure into the town water mains)? 16. Do you have the resources to prepare and maintain up-­‐to-­‐date water treatment system/plant and distribution systems documentation such as As-­‐Built drawings, Process diagrams, Operations Manuals, Log Books, Lab Results, etc? o Could you easily locate As-­‐Builts for: §
Water Treatment System/Plant §
Distribution System §
Water Storage Tank 17. Do you feel the water treatment facility, water source area, and/or water storage tank have adequate security to prevent unauthorized entry? 18. How is the municipality currently track potential threats to source water (e.g. point pollution, physical obstructions within the watershed, levels of DBPs, cabin development, flooding etc.), if at all? o Would you be interested in mapping these things to assist in strategic planning and development in the future? 19. What other innovative strategies have you used in attempt to address your water challenges (e.g. the Regional Water Operator)? o In the case of the Regional Water Operator, how did this come about? Please describe. §
What were/are the benefits? Drawbacks? §
How was this funded? o What are the future plans in terms of regional strategies to manage water infrastructure/source water? Certification and Training 1. What is your level of water operating training/certification? o Years of experience? 44 2. What are your typical hours of work as operator? o How many hours are spent on work/maintenance related to the water treatment system/plant and distribution system, etc? 3. Are you happy with your compensation? 4. Is there only one water operator in your town? o Does anyone replace you while on vacation, training or sick? o Does this person have the same training as you? 5. Were your trained with the Operator Education, Training and Certification (OETC) Program provided by the DOEC (Department of Environment and Conservation)? If not, proceed to question 8. o What were the benefits of this program? 6. Are there any limitations with operator training in NL? o Travel costs? o No replacement while on training? o Other? 7. Do you have any suggestions on how the province can improve the OETC program? o Can you suggest any alternative ways of delivering training sessions? Complaints and Reporting 8. Do you keep record of your daily activities (flows, chlorine residuals, maintenance activities, etc)? 9. Do you receive complaints about the drinking water either directly from residents or from the town office? o What types of complaints? o How often? o What is the range of response times to these complaints? 10. Have there been Boil Water Advisories issued in the past 2 years? o What protocols are there for notification about a boil water advisory when it is communicated from government services/DOEC to your town? 45 o What protocols are there for notification at the town level for communicating the advisory to residents? 11. Have you been in contact about water quality issues over the last 12 months with the Department of Environment and Conservation, Municipal Affairs or Government Services? o What spurred the contact? Town Administrator/Staff / Councillor System 1.
What is the local source of drinking water? Is it the only one? Is there a back-­‐up supply? 2.
How long ago was this supply developed? Can you tell me anything about the historical development of the drinking water suppl(y/ies) locally? 3.
How is drinking water currently delivered in the community? o Do all residents have piped services? o What proportion of community households rely on well and septic systems? 4.
How would you describe the level and quality of water infrastructure in your community? o Type of infrastructure o Scale appropriate for design capacity? o What year was it installed? Have upgrades been made since installation? 5.
Heading into the future, how do you see the drinking water system developing? o Expansion? (Drivers?) o Taking on new systems? o Replacement? New Approaches? 6.
Do you have any comment on private wells in the area? 7.
Within your area can you think of any examples of innovative or unique technology? o E.g., Point of entry treatment, mobile treatment units 46 8.
Are there any public facilities supplied by the town water system? For example: o Daycare facility o Hospital o Seniors home o School (K-­‐12) 9.
Are there any high water users using the public water supply? o Fish plants, other industry? o Does this impact the quality or quantity of water? Management/Financials/Policies 10.
If your water source is a designated protected public water supply area: o Why did your town choose to designate as a protected public water supply area? o How is your water supply managed/protected o Do you think source protection measures are adequate? o Has the council/town tried any new methods of reducing violations of the town’s rules/regulations? 11.
Do the household water tax rates cover water operation and maintenance expenses in your town? 12.
Is either of the following available for the current water system(s)? o Inventory/As-­‐Builts/GIS mapping o Infrastructure assessment/evaluation o Planning document/SOPS 13.
Do you have the resources to prepare and maintain up-­‐to-­‐date water treatment system/plant documentation such as As-­‐Built drawings, Process diagrams, Operations Manuals, Log Books, Lab Results, etc? 14.
Do you feel that the current water infrastructure is planned and managed sustainably? o If no, is this a future goal? 47 o Have you made progress toward sustainable infrastructure goals? Is sustainable infrastructure included in your ICSP(Integrated Community Sustainability Plan) or capital works plan? 15.
Have you requested and/or received capital works funding in the last 5 years for a drinking water related project(s)? o For what? o Was it received? 16.
Have you requested and/or received operation and maintenance assistance related to your water treatment system/plant and/or distribution system in the last 5 years? o What was requested? o Was it received? 17.
Do infrastructure funding programs allow for consideration of local context? o If yes, how? If no, what challenges does this present? How do you deal with these? 18.
Are there any programs, policies, or standards you consider to be critical or influential when it comes to household/drinking water infrastructure? o Foundational o Last 5 years o Last 10? o Last 20? 19.
Is there a town/regional/provincial water management plan? o Is infrastructure included in this? 20.
Do you have the ability within the current regulatory framework to accommodate unique local elements/challenges? o If yes, how? If no, what challenges does this present? How do you deal with these? 21.
Is there a difference between what is mandated and what occurs on the ground in the provincial policies/regulations? 48 22.
Does your town have difficulty with the availability of qualified water operators? o How many replacements have you hired in the last 5 years 23.
Has your town ever considered a regional water operator? o If so, why? 24.
Does your office receive complaints about the drinking water? o What types of complaints? o How often? o What is the range of response times to these complaints? o Are these complaints recorded/logged? 25.
Have there been Boil Water Advisories issued in the past 2 years? o What protocols are there for notification about a boil water advisory when it is communicated from government services/DOEC to your town? o What protocols are there for notification at the town level for communicating the advisory to residents? 26.
Does you town have an emergency response plan and is drinking water considered in this plan? Please explain. o Has this been updated in the last 5 years? Jurisdiction and Integration 27.
Could you please describe the jurisdiction/level of authority you have? 28.
Are there other agencies whose jurisdiction overlaps/overrides/conflicts with yours? o Do you work with these agencies? If yes, how? o Conflicts? Challenges? Please explain. 49 29.
Are there recognized connections between household/drinking water infrastructure and other aspects of water management: water stewardship, source water protection, conservation, regional development? 30.
Do you see an obvious link between household/drinking water infrastructure and regional planning and development? o If yes, please describe how state of infrastructure influences development (or vice versa). o If no – discuss. 31.
How is the municipality currently track potential threats to source water (e.g. point pollution, physical obstructions within the watershed, levels of DBPs, cabin development, flooding etc.), if at all? o Would you be interested in mapping these things to assist in strategic planning and development in the future? 32.
What other innovative strategies have you used in attempt to address your water challenges ( e.g. the Regional Water Operator)? o In the case of the Regional Water Operator, how did this come about? Please describe. §
What were/are the benefits? Drawbacks? §
How was this funded? o What are the future plans in terms of regional strategies to manage water infrastructure/source water? 33.
Describe your relationship with provincial and federal government departments/agencies, NGOs or private industry regarding drinking water quality? Has the relationship changed over time? o
Are there any challenges that need to be overcome to ensure effective collaboration/a better relationship? Please explain. 50 Business Owner 1. Are there any regulations/policies/laws you have to adhere by related to water? o Who imposes these policies: federal/provincial/municipal government? o Who enforces these policies? o Do you feel these policies are appropriate? 2. Is your business ever impacted by the drinking water quality in your town? o Please explain. 3. If in food service/food and drink retailer, do you provide patrons with water products other than publicly supplied drinking water? Why or why not? 4. If a food/drink retailer who sells bottled water, is bottled water a common purchase in your town? 5. How would you describe your business’ level of water use in your community? (Higher than average, average etc...). Please explain. 6. Describe any attempts within your business and/or with community partners to promote the protection/better management of drinking water. 51 Environmental and/or Watershed Group 1.
What is the mandate of your organization? o Are there any mandates specific to drinking water? o Do you have any drinking water related programs/educational opportunities? 2.
Describe your relationship with provincial and federal government departments/agencies, other NGOs or private industry regarding drinking water quality? o Has the relationship changed over time? 3.
Is your water source designated as a protected public water supply area? o Why did your town choose to designate as a protected public water supply area? o How is the water supply managed/protected? o Do you think source protection measures are adequate? o Has the council tried any new methods of reducing violations of the town’s rules/regulations? 4.
Have you partnered with any groups/organizations regarding water-­‐quality management? 52 Environmental Health Officer **Ask intro/general questions as much as they pertain to a regional jurisdiction** 1.
Please briefly describe your mandate as an Environmental Health Officer. o What communities do you serve? 2.
How much interaction do you have with the municipalities in “your region”? o Who, at the municipal level, do you interact with the most? o Describe the level of interaction your field staff have with water operators/staff in municipalities. 3.
What is the greatest health risks associated with the water quality in (subject town)? o Are measures being implemented to reduce these risks? o What can be done to reduce these risks? o Where does your department stand with DBPs and other ‘chemical and physical’ parameters as far as the potential health risk they represent from a municipal perspective? 4.
At what point do you intervene with respect to drinking water safety? o Do you monitor the Drinking Water Quality Reports issued by DOEC? o Do towns ever approach you to help interpret these reports? o To what degree do you help municipalities mitigate their specific environmental health risks/concerns? 5.
Describe your relationship with other provincial and federal government departments/agencies, NGOs or private industry regarding drinking water quality? Has the relationship changed over time? General Resident 1.
Are you aware of any laws/policies surrounding your source water supply? 53 o Do you think these laws/policies are adequate/appropriate? 2.
As a resident, do you have faith in your government (local, provincial, federal) to provide your town with clean and safe drinking water? Why or why not? 54 Section D: Closing Questions for All Respondents 1. How would you like to see the water system in your town develop heading into the future? o Future opportunities? Concerns? o Links to sustainable development? Climate change? 2. Do you have any other recommendations on how the Department of Environment and Conservation, Water Resources Management Division and/or Department of Municipal Affairs and/or NL Services and/or Department of Health and Community Services can improve their drinking water policies or funding programs? 3. Is there anything else you would like to add? Documents you would like to suggest? 4. Is there anything I can provide back in terms of information that you would be interested in? Get contact information, if not already recorded. 55