AGING URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE
The Canadian government is trying to inject as much money into infrastructure as it can. This is not only in the interest of creating jobs, but it is also a much-needed boost to the aging systems that currently service citizens.
According to a report released in 2007 by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 79 per cent of public infrastructure's service life had expired. Larger, older cities are particularly in need of sweeping rehabilitation. In Montreal, 33 per cent of the water distribution pipes reached the end of their service lives in 2002, and St. John's pipelines are about three hundred years old.
In the 2009 budget, under the Economic Action Plan, a grand total of $12 billion dollars was set aside for infrastructure. Within that, there is the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF): $4 billion intended to jumpstart the economy out of the global mess. It is meant to complement existing funds by injecting money into construction-ready projects quickly. The federal government will approve provincial, territorial and municipal project plans, and will cover up to 50 per cent of eligible project costs. The catch is that all projects must begin within the 2009 or 2010 construction season and be completed by March 31, 2011.
In the 2007 budget, there was another infrastructure fund made. The Building Canada plan set out to spread $33 billion over seven years. Within the fund there is the major infrastructure component and communities' component. The Gas Tax Fund is another part of the plan that delivers regular money to cities and towns in support of environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure projects. Each province or territory has its own agreement with the federal government (such as the Building Manitoba Fund) to outline their piece of the pie.
Each province or territory may also have their own various funds previously set up to push their interests and infrastructure initiatives.
Most of the money is split between different types of infrastructure. Water and wastewater systems must compete for funds with roads, bridges, and community centers, which are more visually accessible and therefore pleasing to the public eye. However, a new sports arena won't help a sick patient if a town's degrading drinking water is unsafe.
Many argue that, for all these funds, there hasn't been much money flowing. The government insists they have streamlined the process, but municipalities complain that officials keep making announcements that money is being awarded, while the actual transfer of funds has yet to happen.
The Water Chronicles looked into various cases, and have picked out examples of the good, the bad, and the ugly of Canada's infrastructure situation.
One province that seems to be doing well in terms of putting infrastructure money to use is Ontario. In addition to receiving money from the ISF and $6.2 billion under the Building Ontario Fund, the province itself allocated $30 billion in the 2005 ReNew Ontario plan to be spread over five years for infrastructure projects. Water and wastewater infrastructure is cited as one of the priorities, and numerous funds have been set up with better municipal water systems in mind. One example is the Ontario Small Waterworks Assistance Program (OSWAP), which will provide $40 million over five years to help small municipalities with operating and capital costs for essential water system upgrades. Under this fund, the township of South Glengarry will use $40,122 to improve the management and operation of their drinking water systems. Projects will span business planning, asset management planning, leakage audits and local operator training.
"This investment is aimed to relieve some of the burden our smaller, rural municipalities have in the cost of delivering services like drinking water," said Jim Brownell, MPP for Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry, all of which will benefit from the OSWAP. "We want to ensure all of our communities have the necessary resources to manage their drinking water systems."
Other funding options include the $140 million Rural Infrastructure Investment Initiative and the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, which has committed $380 million to 60 municipalities for infrastructure priorities such as water and wastewater. Plus, for long-term financing, $1.2 billion has been available since 2003 under the Infrastructure Ontario's Loan Program.
However, Halifax doesn't seem to be doing as well in the infrastructure department.
In Feb. 2008, the city of Halifax stepped forward with their $333 million Harbour Solutions Project (HSP) and officially opened a $54 million sewage treatment plant on Upper Water Street. Not even a year later on Jan. 14, for a yet unknown cause, there was an extended local power outage and the plant flooded with wastewater. And with the recent removal of the overstressed protective screens that were used to remove 'floatables' from the water until the plant was operational again, raw sewage has begun to once again seep into the harbour. Prior to the HSP, raw sewage was ejected straight into the harbour and the famous landmark had degraded into rough shape. The HSP was intended to restore the environmental and economic integrity of the region.
However, the local media have chronicled many public complaints about the odour and garbage drifting into the coast. The federal government started an investigation on Apr. 15 under the Fisheries Act, and has since ordered the city to take measures to stop the flow of raw sewage into the harbour. As part of the HSP, another plant is working in Dartmouth and a third one is being built in Herring Cove. Other components of the project include sewage collection and bio-solids management. The property and builder's risk insurances are expected cover the costs of fixing the plant, which will be done by the spring of 2010.
Of the four infrastructure initiatives in Halifax under the Building Canada Plan, not one is related to water or wastewater.
And finally, the ugly situation in the village of Hepburn represents many small towns across the country which are similarly overlooked.
For years, Hepburn applied for federal and provincial grants to improve their tragically outdated water supply system. The town has had 10 boil water advisories and four emergency boil water orders since 2007. Now that a recent report has exposed that 75 per cent of the wells have contamination levels exceeding Health Canada's standards, mayor Barbara Adams Eichendorf said she hopes they will get the help they need.
With the exception of a new resident subdivision equipped with water lines, the Hepburn population (about 700 people, including the 80 to 100 students who seasonally attend the local bible college) relies on wells and has no municipal water system. In March 2009, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (SWA) surveyed 81 wells and 11 cisterns - about half of the town's well-users. The SWA found that 64 per cent of the surveyed wells exceeded the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of uranium. Total coliform bacteria was the second most occurring at 36 per cent. Other contaminants found included selenium, nitrate, arsenic, and in one case, E.coli. While Saskatchewan groundwater is traditionally highly mineralized, the uranium levels in Hepburn are much higher than the provincial average. Prolonged exposure to the metallic element can cause kidney problems, but so far the health region knows of no incidents of illness in the village related to contaminated water. However, decades can pass before the effects of heavy metal contaminants show up.
The town held a meeting to discuss their options for a municipal water supply. The majority of people agreed that they should tap into nearby Saskatoon's water pipeline. Hepburn lies about 50km north of the city, and would have to pay for a pump, create a branch on the water line between Saskatoon and Dalmeny, then build a new 22.5-kilometre pipeline to transport water to Hepburn. The estimated cost is $5.3 million.
The other option is a $6 million project which involves drilling two wells into a nearby aquifer, treating the water and then distributing it to the villagers.
However, the town is only receiving $14,763 for the fiscal year of 2008 - 2009 under the Gas Tax Fund. In the fiscal year 2009 - 2010, the amount is supposed to go up to $29,782.
If Hepburn was to tap into Saskatoon's water supply, then Saskatoon would have to either expand its plant or build a new one to accommodate its own growing population.
On May 26 2009, the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government announced a joint investment of $160.2 million under the ISF, which will fund 61 projects. However, only $42 million and five of those projects are related to water/wastewater. One of these projects is a water Main renewal for Saskatoon.
In the meantime, Hepburn is applying for a federal grant
Updated June 9, 2009 - Sabrina Doyle
URBAN WATER OVERVIEW
A May 2005 report entitled At a Watershed: Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada - prepared by the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance and published by the Walter and Duncan GORDON Foundation - best summarizes in our view the issues facing water in urban communities big and small.
Myth of abundance
Compared with most other nations around the world, Canada is well endowed with fresh water.
Encompassing approximately 7% of the world's landmass, Canada has 9% of its renewable water and only 0.5% of the global population (Environment Canada 2003).
|
Many of the country's water sources and major river systems are located far from where the majority of the population lives. An estimated 12% of Canada, or 1.2 million square km, is covered by lakes and rivers, but only 3% of that area is located in inhabited regions (Statscan 2003). Despite the seeming abundance of fresh water associated with The Great Lakes Basin, most of the water it contains is unavailable for sustainable use. |
Limited supply - An emerging reality in Canada
Water scarcity is a real concern in many parts of Canada, particularly in urban areas where the geographic concentration of human activity creates significant strains on existing, and limited, water resources. Between 1994 and 1999 one in four Canadian municipalities reported water shortages due to increased consumption, drought or infrastructure constraints (Environment Canada 2002).
Ground water - The hidden resource
Groundwater is a crucial but under-appreciated and misunderstood resource in Canada. It is critical to satisfying drinking water needs and is a vital part of the hydrological system and health of the environment. Almost 10 million Canadians rely on groundwater for daily use, and the number is growing (Natural Resources Canada 2004a). Groundwater use varies widely.
Only 27.7% of Quebec residents depend on groundwater, while almost 70% of those living in New Brunswick, and 100% of the population in Prince Edward Island rely on it for drinking water needs (Environment Canada 2004a).
Canadians - High urban water users
Canadians are intensive water users, especially in the urban sector. In 1999, the average Canadian used 343 litres per capita per day for residential use alone. When other municipal water use categories are included—light industrial, commercial, institutional and wastage-water use averages about 600 litres per capita per day (Environment Canada 2002). In a 2001 report, Canada ranked 28th out of 29 OECD countries in a comparison of per capita water use (Boyd
2001).
Within Canada the amount of water used ranges enormously from city to city. A survey of major
Canadian cities found a four fold difference between high and low water users. Winnipeg, Edmonton and Waterloo use less than half the amount of water used in Montreal, Calgary, Hamilton or St. John's (Brandes and Ferguson 2003).
Over the past 20 years, water use in Canada has increased by 25%—in contrast with many other developed nations, including the United States where overall water use has decreased. The upward trend in Canada has continued throughout the 1990s, with total residential water use
increasing 21%, and total municipal water use increasing 6% (Environment Canada 2001a; Brandes and Ferguson 2003).
Pricing structure is an equally important consideration influencing water use. With a flat-rate structure, consumers are charged a fixed amount regardless of the volume used. Flat-rate is the most common pricing structure in Canada, used by 56% of utilities (Environment Canada
2001a). Canadian municipalities often prefer this method because it is perceived as simpler for both the customers and administrators. The federal government's Green Plan suggested "the key to conserving water is paying a fair price for the water we use.
Environmental impacts of high use
Urban development and high water use in urban areas alter the hydrological cycle and place increasing demands on related infrastructure and services. Changes in the hydrological cycle can lead to flow and sediment regime changes, geomorphological changes, impaired water quality, reduced biodiversity and overall degradation of water resources (Environment Canada 2004).
Municipal wastewater effluent is the largest source of effluent discharged into Canadian waters, and it will continue to increase with continued population growth and urbanization (Environment Canada 2001). Discharged effluent contains residues of human waste, debris, nutrients, pathogens, endocrine disrupting substances, unmetabolized pharmaceuticals, ingredients from households and personal care products, and other potentially toxic chemical contaminants (Pollution Probe 2004: 22).
Canada's aging supply infrastructure
High urban water use also increases infrastructure costs. As water demands increase, the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure goes up, as do the costs for infrastructure expansion and future maintenance. Modern water and wastewater systems are the most capital intensive of all public works—with estimates of unmet water and wastewater infrastructure ranging from $23 to $49 billion (NRTEE 1996; Environment Canada 2003a).
The National Round Table on Environment and Economy (1996: 10) estimates that "under current pricing regimes, new capital demands for water and wastewater infrastructure will exceed $41 billion by the year 2015." Much of the water supply infrastructure in Canadian cities is over 50 years old, and a growing population and high water use put further stress on this aging infrastructure.
Climate Change: The certainty of uncertainty
The full impacts of climate change are uncertain, but it will stress water supplies in Canada, making existing supply problems even worse (Campbell 2004). A recent Environment Canada report indicates that climate change will exacerbate water shortages throughout the country. Although, historically, droughts were most frequent in the southern Prairies, many climate experts agree that "climate change may increase [drought] frequency, duration and severity in all regions of the country"(Environment Canada 2004: xii).
Groundwater supplies will be affected across Canada, especially shallow, unconfined aquifers that contain the highest quality groundwater and provide important sources of potable water and water for livestock (Natural Resources Canada 2004: 6).
Legal and institutional framework for fresh water in Canada
With a multitude of agencies and departments sharing authority, water management in Canada has been described as "a bewilderingly complex administrative galaxy." It is "a true patchwork of authorities and responsibilities inherited from days when water was taken for granted, and other resources, such as timber, minerals and fish, were the main concern" (Campbell 2004: 7).
Water management cuts across departments such as environment, natural resources, agriculture, health, public works and infrastructure and varying jurisdictions at municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels of government. Although water is not specifically mentioned in the Canadian Constitution, as a natural resource it is a primary responsibility of provincial and territorial governments. Urban water management is typically delegated to local governments and water utilities, and the federal government's role is less direct.
(At a Watershed -full report)
