1. Water Governance Opportunities and Challenges Presenter: Program on Water Governance, UBC Drs. Leila M. Harris and Karen Bakker Research Associate: Gemma Dunn, MSc

2. 2 Broader GE 3 LS research group Gauge stakeholder readiness for the uptake of a new molecular water quality test Identifying key challenges and opportunities for its implementation Program on Water Governance contribution Analyze the governance environment (including and extending beyond legislation) into which such a test would be introduced. Microbial Risk Governance in Canada (BC/ON)

4. Highly fragmented Most decentralized approach to water governance in OECD countries Myriad of agencies – federal, provincial and municipal Responsibility for water highly complex  Shared vertically and horizontally No overarching framework (e.g. national water policy or central authority)  Approaches vary widely across provinces and between municipalities

5. British ColumbiaOntario Data collectionDispersedCentralized (MoE) Multi-barrier approach Voluntary (provincial guidelines est.) Regulated (several provincial laws) Source water protection Legislation enablesMandated Risk assessment - No legislative imperative (unless ordered by DWO) - No consistent methodologies Required by legislation Risk management - No legislative imperative - Emergency response procedures req’d by legislation - Required by legislation - Emergency response procedures req’d by legislation) Source [adapted]: Dunn et al. (2013) Science of Total Environment

7. 7 ‘A comparative analysis of current microbial water quality risk assessment and management practices in BC and Ontario, Canada’ Science of the Total Environment, Dunn et al. 2014. 468/9: 544-552.  Risk management and assessment practices diverge from the literature  Limited focus on microbial risk assessment for ecosystem health  Variable approaches to microbial risk assessment frameworks and management tools across Canadian provinces  Different agencies use different risk tools, even within the same watershed  Metagenomics tools may address key limitations to current risk assessment and management

8. 8 ‘Microbial water quality communication: public and practitioner insights from British Columbia’ Journal of Water and Health, Dunn et al. in collaboration with N. Heinrich, B. Holmes, N. Prystajecky 2014. 12.3: 583-595.  Public has limited understanding and lack of awareness of microbial threats to water and health related implications  Public unaware of where to get relevant information, if needed (although limited appetite for such information)  Limited planning and evaluation of communication strategies  New communication approaches must be developed and rigorously evaluated  Trust and other long term elements of two-way communication are critical

9. 9 ‘Microbial risk governance: challenges and opportunities in freshwater management in Canada’ Canadian Water Resources Journal, Dunn et al. 2015. In Press  Regulatory and institutional arrangements in both Ontario and BC are very complex  Complexity constrains the ability to effectuate SWP and other aspects of a multi-barrier approach  Water utilities and WAs view the current situation as problematic  Clear institutional mandates and communication processes are needed  Limited focus on microbial risk from an ecosystemic perspective

10. Current approaches are largely: implicit reactive ad hoc / as needed components of the source-to-tap system Literature argues for: formalized and proactive approach ecosystem health approach

11. 11  Collaborative outputs: - Stakeholder Database -GE3LS Policy Brief (in process)  UBC PoWG outputs: Collaborative paper on microbial risk communication (Dunn et al, 2014, JWH) Collaboration on several other papers (legal papers) Paper on microbial risk management (Dunn et al, 2014 STE) Paper on Microbial risk governance (Dunn et al, in press, CWRJ)

12. Our Funders Our Partners BC BC Public Health Microbiology & Reference Lab Lower Mainland Pathology and Laboratory Medicine