Walkerton Inquiry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Paper 18 Drinking Water Safety: Do Ownership and Management Matter? By David Cameron Toronto 2002 © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2002 Published by Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General This paper and other Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Papers are available on the Walkerton Inquiry CD-ROM and at <www.walkertoninquiry.com> with the complete final report. General editor, Commissioned Papers: Sheila Protti Editors: Iris Hossé Phillips Proofreader: Marie-Lynn Hammond Design: Madeline Koch, Wordcraft Services; Brian Grebow, BG Communications Drinking Water Safety i Abstract This study explores the following questions: Is there a relationship between water safety and water quality, on the one hand, and who owns or who operates the water system, on the other? Does it make a difference whether it is a private firm or a public body that owns all or part of the water system? Does it matter whether the water system is operated by a for-profit company or by a public agency? Recognizing that countries around the world have employed a variety of arrangements for the delivery of their water services, and recognizing as well that natural-monopoly considerations place clear limits on the role that the private sector can play in the water field, the study adopts a three-pronged approach. Firstly, we report on discussions of water quality, ownership, management, and regulatory issues and note that although there is extensive writing on these subjects, there is very little analysis that directly examines the relationship between water quality and either ownership or management issues. Secondly, the study explores the experience of several jurisdictions that have used different forms of organization and delivery for their water and sewage services. Historically, countries have fashioned diverse arrangements to supply their needs, ranging from predominantly public models, as in the United States, Great Britain, and many other industrialized countries, to those in which the private sector took a larger role, as in France. The last decade or two has seen substantial innovation and experimentation, sometimes involving major system transformation (as in the United Kingdom), and yielding a wide array of public/ private models. The study looks at some of the more interesting of these models: Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Poland, Argentina, Mexico, and Bolivia. Thirdly, the study reports in more detail on the divergent paths taken by three municipalities in the Toronto area: the former Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, now the amalgamated City of Hamilton, and the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York. All faced major choices in the 1990s, but each chose to pursue a distinct course of development. York decided to stick with a public delivery model; Peel, after a competitive bidding process, engaged the public corporation, ii Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Paper 18 the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), to operate key elements of its system; and Hamilton selected a private sector firm to run its water and sewage operations. The study concludes that, with respect to the question of ownership, the titleholder of the assets is a relatively unimportant consideration in the achievement of good water quality outcomes, compared to a variety of other factors. As for the difference between public and private operators, we have found that while the systems may be shaped rather differently, depending on the relative roles of the public and private sectors, the public and private elements in the equation as such seem to be relatively minor factors in the construction of a system that delivers safe water. Our hunch is that other considerations have a good deal more to do with determining the performance of a water system than who owns the pumping station or whether a private firm has been put in charge of delivering the water and collecting the sewage. With respect to the ongoing operations of a water system, for example, we suspect that factors such as the skills and training of the staff, the overall management systems in place, the state of development of water engineering and water technologies, the condition of the infrastructure, and the existence of effective monitoring capability and adequate feed-back loops are of capital importance in determining what level of water quality the citizens of a given jurisdiction may enjoy. As for the preservation of the long- term viability of a water system, it seems quite clear that sensible water-pricing policies, the development of and adherence to long-term capital plans, and the timely renewal and expansion of the water system’s infrastructure characterize high performance outcomes. What these observations point to is the importance – if safety risks are to be reduced to a minimum – of a jurisdiction’s equipping itself with a fully articulated operating system for water management. No single element can do the job on its own. High quality water and water safety appear to be characteristics of a system whose many interlocking parts work together to produce the desired outcomes and to correct deficiencies quickly and effectively when parts of the system fail. Drinking Water Safety iii About the Author Dr. David Cameron, a specialist in Canadian government and politics, is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. He is a former deputy minister with the Ontario government’s Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. Research Associates Jennifer McCrea-Logie has recently completed a doctorate in political science at the University of Toronto, with a focus on health policy. Rachel Melzer is working on an M.A. in Environmental Studies at York University. David Whorley is a former provincial and municipal public servant and is presently completing a doctorate in political science at the University of Toronto. Drinking Water Safety v Contents 1Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Aims of the Study ........................................................................... 1 1.2 Factors Affecting This Study........................................................... 2 1.3 Outline of Our Approach ............................................................... 4 1.4 Goals of the Study .......................................................................... 5 1.5 Analytical Framework..................................................................... 5 1.5.1 Ownership ............................................................................ 5 1.5.2 Management and Operation ................................................. 5 1.6 Real World ..................................................................................... 6 1.7 Private and Public Roles in Water Systems...................................... 7 1.8 Delivery Models ........................................................................... 10 2 Literature Review ................................................................................ 12 2.1 Two Facets of the Discussion ........................................................ 12 2.1.1 Water Quality ..................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Ownership and Management Issues .................................... 26 2.2 Citizen Participation .................................................................... 34 2.3 Public Health Strategy for Drinking Water................................... 35 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................... 36 3 Experience in Various Jurisdictions ...............................................37 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 37 3.2 Canada ......................................................................................... 39 3.2.1 Ontario ............................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Other Provinces................................................................... 42 3.3 The United States......................................................................... 44 3.3.1 Position of Public-Private Partnerships ................................ 44 3.3.2 Cryptosporidium Outbreak in Milwaukee, 1993 ................ 45 3.3.3 Atlanta ................................................................................ 53 3.4 Europe ......................................................................................... 55 3.4.1 England and Wales.............................................................. 55 3.4.2 France ................................................................................. 73 3.5 Australia ....................................................................................... 79 3.5.1 Structure of Water Distribution Services ............................. 79 3.5.2 Water Quality ..................................................................... 80 3.5.3 Cryptosporidium Scare of 1998 in Sydney .......................... 80 3.6 Poland .......................................................................................... 89 3.6.1 Structure of Water Distribution Services ............................. 89 3.6.2 State of Water Quality......................................................... 90 iv Walkerton Inquiry Commissioned Paper 18 3.6.3 Bielsko-Biala Case ............................................................... 91 3.7 Developing Countries .................................................................