developing an integrated risk management ......figure 12: national consultation workshop...

DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT “ONE WATER”

IN MUNICIPALITIES

Prepared by:

Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1

What is One Water? .............................................................................................................................. 8 2

2.1 Complexities and interactions ...................................................................................................... 9

Identifying the Risks ............................................................................................................................ 14 3

Water infrastructure risks ........................................................................................................... 14 3.1

3.1.1 Key drivers ........................................................................................................................... 14

Risks from Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 16 3.2

3.2.1 Key drivers ........................................................................................................................... 16

Population growth and increased urbanization ......................................................................... 18 3.3

3.3.1 Key drivers ........................................................................................................................... 18

The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix ............................................................................................... 20

Legislation and Governance ................................................................................................................ 21 4

4.1 Legal responsibilities and different levels of government .......................................................... 21

4.1.1 Barriers to integration and legal responsibilities across departments ............................... 23

4.1.2 The roles of other actors ..................................................................................................... 24

4.1.3 Legal management of a trans-boundary resource .............................................................. 25

4.1.4 Legal issues associated with stormwater management ..................................................... 27

4.2 Governance ................................................................................................................................. 28

4.2.1 Networked governance structure ....................................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Municipal decision making .................................................................................................. 29

4.2.3 An inter-jurisdictional approach to managing risks ............................................................ 30

4.2.4 Components of successful network governance ................................................................ 30

4.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 32

Watershed Planning Approach ........................................................................................................... 34 5

5.1 Proposed next steps for watershed planning ............................................................................. 35

5.1.1 Watershed and subwatershed plans .................................................................................. 36

5.1.2 The municipal master planning approach .......................................................................... 36

5.1.3 Sustainability Plan ............................................................................................................... 37


Asset Management ............................................................................................................................ 39 6

6.1 Condition assessment and defining the level of service ............................................................. 40

6.2 Tools for integration ................................................................................................................... 42

6.3 Adapting to Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 44

Integrated Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ 48 7

7.1 Barriers and challenges ............................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Risk management framework ..................................................................................................... 51

7.3 Tools for assessing the vulnerability of water infrastructure ..................................................... 52

7.3.1 ICLEI Changing Climate, Changing Communities Framework ............................................. 52

7.3.2 Residential Basement Flooding Vulnerability Assessment Tool-Municipal Risk Assessment

Tool (MRAT) ........................................................................................................................................ 53

7.3.3 Engineers Canada- Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee Protocol . 54

7.4 Sustainability Rating Tools .......................................................................................................... 57

7.4.1 Envision™ Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System .......................................................... 58

7.4.2 Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) ..................................................... 58


Innovative Green Infrastructure Technologies ................................................................................... 60 8

8.1 Stormwater risks and impacts linked to drinking water and wastewater systems .................... 60

8.2 Stormwater management approaches and risks ........................................................................ 62

8.2.1 Conventional stormwater management ............................................................................. 62

8.2.2 Green Infrastructure approaches and designs ................................................................... 63


Integrated Financial Planning ............................................................................................................. 67 9

9.1 Legislation that supports integrated financial planning ............................................................. 68

9.1.1 Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act ........................................................................ 68

9.1.2 Ontario Regulation 453/07 (O. Reg 453/07) ....................................................................... 69

9.1.3 Public Sector Accounting Board Reporting ......................................................................... 70

Life-cycle costing ................................................................................................................................. 70

9.1.4 Water Opportunities Act ..................................................................................................... 70

9.2 Elements of a Financial Plan ....................................................................................................... 71

9.2.1 Financing options ................................................................................................................ 72

9.3 Potential barriers to integrated financial plans .......................................................................... 74


Recommendations and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 77 10

10.1 Legislation and governance .................................................................................................... 77

10.2 Integrated Watershed Planning .............................................................................................. 77

10.3 Asset management ................................................................................................................. 78

10.4 Integrated risk assessments .................................................................................................... 78

10.5 Integrated financial planning .................................................................................................. 79

10.6 Innovative green infrastructure technologies ........................................................................ 80

References ...................................................................................................................................... 82 11

Table of Figures

Figure 1: The components of an integrated framework. Source: CVC 7 Figure 2: The “One Water” approach. Source: Healthy Waterways. 8 Figure 3: Water Systems in the Credit River Watershed. Source: CVC 9 Figure 4: Some of the different ways that infrastructures interact with each other. Source: CVC 11 Figure 5: Sample excerpts from the Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix, demonstrating the

approach to information organization. Source: Utility Matrix, Richard Harvey 20 Figure 6: Varying guidelines and standards across different municipalities within a watershed.

Source: CVC 26 Figure 7: Recommendations on decision making governance structure based on 2014 National

Consultation Workshop. Source: CVC 30 Figure 8: Components of successful network governance. Source: CVC 31 Figure 9: Priorities for better integrated water management. Source: CVC 32 Figure 10: Support from practitioners on the watershed planning process. Source: CVC 35 Figure 11: National Consultation Workshop respondents agree that watershed targets could inform

infrastructure targets. Source: CVC 38 Figure 12: National Consultation Workshop participants identify barriers to implementing an

advanced asset management practice in Canada. Source: CVC 41 Figure 13: Feedback on areas of further research for climate change and infrastructure planning.

Source: CVC 45 Figure 14: Failure costs associated with Finch Avenue culvert. Source: City of Toronto 2011. 49 Figure 15: Indication of lack of research on reducing failure risk. Source: CVC 49 Figure 16: Barriers inhibiting completion of risk assessment. Source: CVC 50 Figure 17: ISO 31000 Risk Management. Source: ISO 51 Figure 18: ICLEI’s five-step milestone framework. Source: ICLEI, 2011. 52 Figure 19: An illustration of MRAT basement flooding risk maps. Source: IBC MRAT. 54 Figure 20: PIEVC Protocol Steps. Source: PIEVC. 55 Figure 21: Elements of Watershed Vulnerability Assessments (after Neiltz et al., 2013) 56 Figure 22: Capabilities and focus of relevant tools and reports. Source: WINA Report- When the Bough

Breaks; Nov, 2014. 57 Figure 23: Comparison of road retrofit alternatives for a local residential road. Source: CVC 68

Figure 24: Comparison of different financial approaches. Source: XX 70 Figure 25: Typical components of a financial plan with additional considerations to enhance

integration. Source: Adapted from a chart provided by Gary Scanlan. 72

Introduction 1

Canadian municipalities are facing challenges from continued growth, climate change, aging

infrastructure, and the increasingly limited ability of receiving waterways to absorb the impact of

stormwater runoff and pollution. While many municipalities have water and wastewater asset

management plans, stormwater infrastructure has largely been overlooked despite its impact on water

and wastewater infrastructure.

Over the last decade, many municipalities have begun to recognize the importance of addressing water

systems and their management using an integrated and holistic “One Water” approach. This approach

allows municipalities, water managers, and regulators to better coordinate the development and

management of water, land, and related resources in a sustainable and equitable manner. They also

encourage decisions and investments that will achieve the best results and returns for public health, the

economy, and the environment.

To support municipalities as they make the move to integrated water management and water

sustainability planning, the University of Guelph in partnership with Credit Valley Conservation (CVC),

McMaster University and Dalhousie University conducted a project in 2014-2015 to identify and remove

some of the barriers that prevent municipalities from adopting a “One Water” approach. This report is

the end result of that project. It will outline the risks and drivers related to water systems that

municipalities are facing, demonstrate effective risk management tools and strategies, and discuss the

need for an integrated risk management framework.

To help organize the layout of information in this report, a framework has been developed that

illustrates the basic components municipalities need to consider when aiming for a One Water

approach.

Figure 1 shows the components of the proposed framework, which includes sections on legislation and

governance, the watershed approach, asset management practices, integrated risk assessment,

innovative green infrastructure technology, and integrated financial planning.

Figure 1: The components of an integrated framework. Source: CVC

Watershed

Approach

Legislation and

Governance

Asset

Management

Integrated Risk

Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology

Integrated Financial

Planning

One Water

Framework

What is One Water? 2

In the natural hydrologic cycle, the majority of precipitation is subject to evapotranspiration and

infiltration, with a small amount turning into runoff. However the opposite is happening in urbanized

areas because of several factors, including large, impermeable surfaces. Evapotranspiration and

infiltration are reduced while runoff volumes increase. This is altering the natural water balance and

creating a shift towards urban water balance.

At the same time, human consumption of water is impacting the hydrologic cycle. Infrastructure that

delivers potable water and discharges wastewater discharges are all part of urban water balance and

must also be incorporated into the new water cycle.

One Water is an integrated water management approach that incorporates and mimics the natural

hydrologic cycle. It looks at drinking water, wastewater and stormwater holistically, at a watershed

scale. Figure 2 illustrates how we can combine the natural and urban water cycles to think of them as

One Water.

Figure 2: The “One Water” approach. Source: Healthy Waterways.

To adopt an integrated approach, municipalities need to look at water management from a watershed

perspective and consider the watershed as an asset. In doing so, municipalities can begin to see the

many layers of complexity that influence water management. Figure 3 illustrates different water

systems from the watershed perspective.

Figure 3: Water Systems in the Credit River Watershed. Source: CVC

2.1 Complexities and interactions A watershed perspective can help municipalities better understand how different water systems interact

(see Figure 3). Within a watershed, different water infrastructures such as drinking water, wastewater

and stormwater systems each have unique functionality, and they also influence one another. For

example, in some municipalities, storm and sanitary sewers are combined, which can lead to combined

sewer overflows (CSO’s) during large rainfall events.

However water, wastewater and stormwater are for the most part handled as separate services. Waste

water is managed through individual or communal sanitary system. It is gathered and piped to a

wastewater treatment plant where it is treated and discharged to the receiving waterway. Stormwater

management systems are designed to collect rainfall runoff from urban watersheds and discharge the

water into the nearest adjacent waterway or to end-of-pipe facilities (e.g. stormwater management

ponds). Drinking water is treated at a water treatment plant and then distributed to the end users. In

rural areas single homes may have private or communal wells.

Figure 4 illustrates the interactions between different infrastructures, in several different scenarios. The

One Water approach recognizes that these systems are interrelated.

Relying on groundwater - With increased impervious area, population growth and changing

climatic conditions, there is less infiltration to replenish groundwater supplies and base flow to

the receiving stream. This impacts water supply.

Living close to the lake - Urban runoff can impact surface water quality and require more

treatment at the drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) to achieve required standards, which

could translate to increased costs.

Assimilative capacity - With decreasing base flow due to increased urbanization and

population growth, it can become more difficult to achieve assimilative capacity targets for

the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which could translate to expensive upgrades and/or

receiving water impairment.

Combined sewer overflows and cross-connections - Heavy rainfall events can overwhelm

combined sewer systems resulting in bypass of untreated wastewater and pollution of the

receiving waterways. Downstream communities that rely on the receiving waterway as a

source of drinking water may need to spend more to treat the water to potable standards.

Figure 4: Some of the different ways that infrastructures interact with each other. Source: CVC

Many municipalities that were once completely groundwater-based have reached maximum allowable

growth based on existing water supply. In order to grow, these municipalities need to find alternative

sources of water.

One solution is to stop managing water infrastructure systems and urban watersheds as mutually

exclusive systems. For example, water is treated to potable standards, but then used for tasks that do

not require portable water, such as irrigating lawns. Stormwater is a great alternative for irrigation,

however it is often considered wastewater, and we take great strides to convey it efficiently from the

land where it falls. Grey (or traditional) infrastructure solutions tend to be the status quo, but there are

many proven benefits to using green (or soft) infrastructure solutions. Table 1 introduces new ways of

thinking about different water systems that support the shift to a One Water approach.

Table 1: Changing approaches to different topics. Source: Adapted from EPRI, 2010.

Topic New Paradigm

Water use Multiple use – Use household grey water for irrigation.

Water quality

(supplied)

Apply “right water for right use” – Treat water to a level of water quality suitable

for its intended use. Ex. We don’t need to use potable water for irrigation

purposes or to flush toilets.

Wastewater “Close the loop” – Recover valuable resources (reclaimed water, nutrients,

carbon, metals and biosolids) from “waste” water for beneficial uses such as

potable water offsets, fertilizers, and generating power.

Stormwater Harvest stormwater for water supply, irrigation, and/or infiltration benefits

Increase

system

capacity

Implement cost-effective, demand-side, green infrastructure before increasing

grey infrastructure.

Type of water

infrastructure

Integrate the natural capacities of soil and vegetation (green infrastructure) to

capture, infiltrate and treat water with grey infrastructure.

Centralized

infrastructure

Multiple decentralized small water treatment and distribution systems

combining local needs and the triple bottom line.

Complex

design

Require new infrastructure design technologies and strategies to address today’s

complex water problems.

Infrastructure

integration

“Water is water” – Integrate infrastructure and management of all types of

water regionally.

Public

involvement Engage stakeholders in the decision-making system from the beginning.

Monitoring and

maintenance

Move smart systems out to end users to provide real-time feedback regarding

energy use and water use rates to build understanding, modify behavior for

higher efficiencies, and notify for maintenance.

Cost-benefit

analyses

Develop an understanding of the full cost and benefits of infrastructure,

including externalities.

Water Balance Understand the hydrologic needs of the local natural heritage system (i.e.

maintain the water balance).

Identifying the Risks 3

Understanding how municipal water infrastructure systems are connected—including drinking water

treatment and distribution, wastewater conveyance and treatment, stormwater management and

combined sewers systems—is the first step in moving towards the One Water approach. The next step is

to identifying the risks associated with water management. By identifying these risks, municipalities can

start to develop solutions within an integrated water management framework.

Three key risks have been identified that challenge municipalities ability to manage water. They are:

1. Water infrastructure

2. Climate Change

3. Increased population grown and urbanization

Water infrastructure risks 3.1Most of North America’s water and wastewater infrastructure was built during the post-World War II

era of rapid economic growth. This infrastructure is approaching, or has already reached, the end of its

design life. A recent estimate reveals that replacing Canada’s aging infrastructure to maintain current

levels of service now and in the future would require a total investment of $87 billion. That’s an average

of $6,488 per household (FCM 2012).

The two main reasons water and wastewater infrastructure can fail to carry out its intended function

safely and effectively include:

1) Physical degradation with age leading to structural failure. Physical degradation of buried

assets, for example, can lead to structural failure of linear assets resulting in leakage from

pressurized pipes, external ingress to non-pressurized pipes, and ultimately, complete failure.

2) Out-dated design capacity. Changes in demand patterns can result from increased water and

wastewater conveyance demands due to population growth.

3.1.1 Key drivers

There are six key drivers of risk related to aging

infrastructure: insufficient funding, lack of up-to-date

asset condition information, increased exfiltration,

increased infiltration/inflows (I/I), physical degradation,

and the potential for catastrophic pipe bursts.

1. Insufficient funding: Insufficient or unsustainable

funding for infrastructure projects leads to

inconsistent asset condition characterization and

maintenance. Key implications of insufficient

funding include limited asset inspection, irregular

structural maintenance, irregular cleaning, and the

Many Canadian

municipalities lack any

condition information on

their buried assets and

33% rely on expert

opinion, not

comprehensive visual

inspection, when

developing maintenance

plans (FCM 2012).

inability to effectively budget for rehabilitation and growth. All classes of municipal water assets

were determined to be at risk as a result of the inability to develop strategic maintenance plans

in the absence of asset condition information. The potential impacts of inconsistent structural

maintenance include, but are not limited to, catastrophic failure and flooding, extensive and

costly repairs, and threats to public health and safety. Inadequate funding also affects the ability

to plan for long-term growth and rehabilitation.

2. Lack of asset condition information: Asset condition information allows municipalities to locate

and quantify the severity of threats to buried assets, avoid critical failures, and develop

prioritized maintenance plans. Without this information, it is very difficult to budget for

rehabilitation and growth, and the risk of failures looms. Organizations such as the American

Society of Civil Engineers have identified that the performance of infrastructure is critical in

maintaining a strong economy.

3. Increased exfiltration from buried infrastructure: Partially compromised pipe walls pose

increased risks to buried conveyance systems. In these scenarios, water can still be conveyed,

but contaminants can travel through the breaks and cause health and safety issues. Exfiltration

is an issue for both pressure-driven water distribution systems and gravity-driven wastewater

and stormwater systems. It is estimated that up to 30% of treated water entering Canadian

distribution networks is lost through leaks in pipe walls. Exfiltration also causes a threat in

wastewater conveyance, since contaminants may penetrate to groundwater. A recent study in

Guelph, Ontario found 90% of the city’s 22 drinking water wells contained at least one sewage-

derived contaminant and 45% of the wells exhibited human enteric viruses derived from sewage

exfiltration (Allen 2013). Furthermore, the Center for Disease Control attributed 57 cases of

waterborne disease outbreaks to cross-connections between drinking water and wastewater

conveyance from 1981-1988 (EPA 2001).

4. Increased infiltration and inflows from buried infrastructure: Infiltration to wastewater

conveyance systems during wet weather events results in increased water treatment

requirements, elevated treatment plant operating costs and often results in sewer overflows.

More than 75,000 sanitary sewer leaks occur annually across the United States, resulting in the

release of several billions of gallons of untreated wastewater to surface water (EPA 2014).

5. Causes of physical degradation: Other age-based deterioration processes identified through the

research, include internal scaling in pipes, tree root intrusion and damages incurred during

excavation for future developments. Scaling in distribution pipes can contribute to an increase in

biofilm growth of 600-620% for copper and 85-90% for PVC pipes. This growth can increase pipe

degradation, as well as pose threats for public health (Fox & Abbaszadegan 2013). An estimated

$33 million in unnecessary damage is caused to buried infrastructure though new developments

planned around existing infrastructure (Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities 2014).

6. Catastrophic pipe bursts: According to some research, the act of increasing pressure in

distribution networks to compensate for pipe leaks can cause long-term failure rates to rise

from 1 to 6 breaks per 100km/year as pressure is increased from 105 to 123 psi in aging

networks (Ambrose et al. 2010). Failure in distribution systems poses the risk of damage to

surrounding infrastructure and property, as well as a loss of considerable volumes of potable

water and potential exposure threats to water consumers due to ingress of ambient water into

the water distribution system.

Risks from Climate Change 3.2Severe weather is likely to become one of the greatest reasons for higher costs in the future delivery of

water services and managing infrastructure (OECD 2006). Precipitation, evaporation and runoff patterns

are changing, resulting in uncertainty about the security of water supply, the quality of drinking water,

flood management in urban environments and the long-term health of natural ecosystems (CWN 2014).

Researchers have observed changes in rainfall intensities and their significance. From analysis of 13 rain

gauges across Ontario, researchers observed an increased frequency of design storm events. In the

Waterloo Region, they concluded that storm intensities for both five-year and two-year return period

have increased for durations shorter than two hours (Vasiljevic et al. 2012).

Researchers at MIT and Princeton University have reported further evidence of changes in precipitation

patterns and increases in storm intensities using predictive climate models. Through the simulation of

tens of thousands of storm events under different climate conditions, researchers concluded that

climate change could result in powerful tropical storms making landfall more frequently. Today’s “500-

year floods” could occur once every 25 to 240 years (MIT 2012). Furthermore, extreme events are often

cascading in nature where, instead of one dominant event, localities are dealing with multiple

occurrences and types of extreme events, many of which are more severe than in preceding decades

(WERF 2013). Combinations of extreme events are very challenging from an operations perspective, as

during times of crisis, all systems are pushed to their maximum capacity, flexibility and capability, often

leading to startling discoveries of weaknesses and limitations that were not previously anticipated or

understood (WRF 2014).

3.2.1 Key drivers

This section reviews eight key risk drivers to municipal water systems resulting from impacts of a

changing climate, including variation in historical precipitation patterns, changes in water/air

temperatures, permafrost recession, changing snowmelt conditions, sea level rise, ineffectiveness of

climate sensitive design tools, and lack of treatment/conveyance infrastructure resilience.

1) Increase in rainfall intensity: Changes in runoff quantity and quality as a result of varying

precipitation can lead to elevated risk in municipal water systems. For instance, precipitation

can transport organic contaminants and suspended solids from agricultural areas, which may

result in adverse effects to surface water supply uptake and existing stormwater management

facilities. Increases in high-intensity precipitation events are believed to increase the likelihood

of waterborne disease outbreaks by a factor of two (Health Canada 2005). This projection is

consistent with findings from Curriero et al. (2001), who determined 51% of waterborne disease

outbreaks in the United States between 1948 and 1994 were preceded by precipitation events

above the 90th percentile (P = 0.002) and 68% by events above the 80th percentile (P = 0.001).

Increases in soil water content resulting from increased precipitation can result in heightened

inflow and infiltration (I/I) to buried infrastructure, possibly leading to sewer back-up in homes.

Basement flooding has become a significant issue in Canada, and is now the leading reason for

insurance payouts, surpassing fire, at an estimated value of $1.7 billion annually (IBC 2012).

Finally, increased precipitation may cause flood damage to infrastructure.

2) Increased water temperature: Elevated temperatures, in addition to increased nutrient loading,

may result in the augmented occurrence of algal blooms. Changes to surface water temperature

can also result in the migration of invasive species into previously uninhabitable ecosystems. For

example, zebra mussels have obstructed flow in water distribution systems in the United

Kingdom, requiring increases in pressure to overcome the augmented friction (BBC 2014).

Increased water temperature in distribution systems may also lead to accelerated contaminant

regrowth, while increased temperatures in wastewater flows can result in heightened

production of hydrogen sulphide gas, which is corrosive to pipes and toxic to humans (CSIRO

1988).

3) Increased air temperature: Increases in ambient air temperature has implications for all

municipal water sectors but, perhaps most importantly, for drinking water infrastructure.

Increased evaporation rates have the potential to diminish surface water sources as a result of

heightened evapotranspiration. Current projections state rates could increase by as much as 8-

15% from current levels as a result of climate change (Zhang & Lemckert 2012)

4) Melting permafrost: As a result of a warming climate, permafrost temperatures have increased

considerably across the globe over the course of the last 20-30 years (Romanovsky et al. 2007).

Loss of permafrost poses risk to buried infrastructure designed for frozen subsurface conditions.

Changing underground conditions can impact the structural integrity of treatment plants, dams,

reservoirs and pipes designed for frozen ground strength (Nunavut Climate Change Centre,

2015). In 2006 the community of Dawson City, Yukon was required to increase its water and

sewer maintenance budget of $340,000 to a total of $1 million to manage the impacts of

melting permafrost (Beacom 2006).

5) Changing snowmelt conditions: Climate change has resulted in rapid spring thaws as well an

increased occurrence of mid-winter snowmelts (Columbia Basin Trust 2011). Changes in melt

conditions pose additional risk to stormwater conveyance and management systems. In addition

to variations in runoff quality, mid-winter thaws increase mobilization of road salt, potentially

further impacting water supply sources.

6) Sea level rise: Projected sea level rise resulting from melting polar ice caps and thermal

expansion of ocean depths poses risks to infrastructure in many low-lying urban areas (UCSUSA

2013). In addition to flood-related damage to infrastructure, salt water intrusion to coastal

groundwater has been identified as a potential risk for many communities.

7) Ineffectiveness of climate-sensitive design tools: Changes in precipitation patterns, surface

cover, topography, and water use pose substantial risk to municipal water systems, especially

due to possible damage as a result of urban flooding. A lack of current and accurate information,

such as intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves that reflect true precipitation trends, can put

municipalities at risk when they are design new stormwater management systems. As well, the

average Ontario floodplain map is 22 years old. More than 80% of these maps are outdated and

do not reflect the reality of increasing extreme weather in urban environments (ECO, 2014).

8) Lack of treatment plant resilience: Increasing demand is placing stress on existing infrastructure

and requiring municipalities to make significant investments to upgrade the capacity of

treatment facilities. During wet weather events that overwhelm existing infrastructure,

municipalities are sometimes forced to discharge untreated wastewater directly to surface

water, especially via combined sewer overflows. Large investments to treatment plants can

reduce risk to public health and ecosystems associated with these discharges.

Population growth and increased urbanization 3.3Almost 90% of Canada’s total population growth since 2001 has occurred in Canada’s 33 census

metropolitan areas (Statistics Canada 2008). This issue translates into an increasing rate of urbanization

in municipalities and in turn, watersheds. Growth in both of these areas means municipalities will have

to ensure that the water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure meets the expected level of

service. Changes in land use associated with urbanization can affect flooding patterns and impact in

several ways. For instance, drainage networks can increase runoff to streams from rainfall and

snowmelt, thereby increasing the peak discharge, volume and frequency of floods (USGS 2014).

3.3.1 Key drivers

This section reviews five key sources of risk to municipal water systems that result from the impacts of

population growth and increasing urbanization, including population growth, increased demand on

undersized linear infrastructure, contamination as a result of urbanization, changes in surface cover, and

implications associated with industrialization.

1) Population growth: Population growth poses several risks to all municipal water infrastructures.

These risks stem from a higher demand for potable water, higher wastewater treatment

requirements, and the impacts to stormwater management from changing land cover resulting

from urban sprawl. Water demand in Canada has been increasing continually in conjunction

with population growth – from 1972 to 1996 Canada’s cumulative water extraction increased

from 24 to 45 million cubic metres per year, a total increase of 90% (Environment Canada 2013).

In regard to changing surface cover from natural to urban land, studies have shown an 11 to 19

fold increase in stormwater runoff occurred while infiltration rates decreased from natural

levels by 11% to 100% (Harbor 1994). These issues contribute both to flood risk as well as risks

associated with reduced groundwater recharge. On a related note, an investment of $3.4 billion

will be required to meet regulatory standards for wastewater by 2020 (FCM 2015). Providing

food for a growing population also poses risks to water sources as increased consumption can

result in pollutant loading through agricultural runoff, as well as more water requirements for

crop irrigation

2) Undersized linear infrastructure: Growing demand on an aging linear network is another driver

of risk to water systems, as linear networks were designed for smaller flows. This increases the

likelihood of failure to perform their intended function. In regard to drinking water, as more

customers are added to a distribution network, increased pipe velocities may accelerate pipe

degradation rates, thereby increasing the frequency of pipe breaks (Public Works 2012). In the

United States, an investment of $298 billion will be required over the next 20 years to expand

and repair sewage conveyance systems and minimize the occurrence of combined sewer

overflows and separated sewer overflows resulting from increased conveyance demands and to

mitigate inflow and infiltration (ASCE 2013). As a result of changing surface cover, an increase in

wet weather flows will require stormwater management systems to be retrofitted to increase

capacity. A recent drainage study in Waterloo, Ontario projected a 25% to 50% increases in

stormwater flows as a result of further development (City of Waterloo 2005).

3) Contamination due to urbanization: To ensure sufficient treatment of increasing wastewater

volumes, municipalities will have to increase plant capacity or make existing systems more

efficient. Facilities in Calgary have been continually upgraded from 213,600 cubic meters per day

in 1954 to the current capacity of 500,000 cubic meters while still meeting discharge regulations

(City of Calgary 2015). Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) such as pharmaceuticals are an

additional source of risk in urban environments since conventional wastewater treatment plants

are not designed to remove these materials. A surface water study found that 80% of 139

streams sampled across 30 U.S. states contained a wide range of CECs, believed to be from

residential, agricultural and industrial sources (Kolpin et al. 2002).

4) Changes in land use: Whenever we make changes to naturally occurring surface cover, we must

consider risk to municipal water systems, especially stormwater management systems. The

potential impacts of changes to surface cover include both higher runoff volumes and peak

runoff rates for a given storm event. These impacts are a direct result of reduced infiltration

capacity and improved stormwater conveyance, respectively. Potential impacts to receiving

water channels include increased erosion and sediment loading that could pose a flood risk to

downstream communities. Additionally, large areas of dark surface cover (roads, parking lots,

roofs, etc.), are increasing temperatures of urban runoff higher than what is found under

natural conditions. Changes in temperature may also have adverse effects on downstream

groundwater feed ecosystems.

5) Industrialization: Increased industrial activities drive risk for water systems due to the high

demand on water sources as well as the unique characteristics of contaminants in discharge

water. Canada’s three largest industrial water consumers (thermal electric power,

manufacturing and mining) use 30.6 billion gallons annually, accounting for a substantial portion

of the country’s total water intake (Statistics Canada 2009). Sources of water contamination

include industrial runoff as well as contaminants of emerging concern that are not removed by

traditional wastewater treatment facilities.

This section is a summary of research carried out by University of Guelph. For more information

please see Appendix A.

The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix developed by the University of Guelph is an interactive PDF

that illustrates the interconnectedness of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems and the

risks associated with managing them in isolation. Getting a view of the whole picture can help

municipalities better visualize their integrated approach to risk management.

The matrix contains three sections that discuss risks associated with aging infrastructure, climate

change, and urbanization and population growth. Figure 5 is a sample excerpts from the matrix to

demonstrate the general organization of information within the tool. Throughout the matrix, users can

find links to external resources, such as literature, guidance tools, and case studies that supplement

information within the document.

Ch

ap

ter

Ov

erv

iew

De

tail

s

Ex

tern

al

lin

ks

Figure 5: Sample excerpts from the Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix, demonstrating the approach to information organization. Source: Utility Matrix, Richard Harvey

Legislation and Governance 4The next step in moving towards a One Water approach is to identify tools that can help manage the

risks identified in Chapter 3. Legislation and Governance is one of these tools.

The legal and governance framework for water management involves many actors across several

jurisdictional boundaries, including federal, provincial, municipal and regulatory agencies. The

distribution and overlap of responsibility often makes it difficult for municipalities to facilitate

coordination and integration. Jurisdictional boundaries of legislative authority, combined with the

dynamic, trans-boundary nature of water, can make risk management through integrated water

management a challenge.

4.1 Legal responsibilities and different levels of government Responsibility is divided among different levels of government, distributing powers among the federal,

provincial, territorial, municipal governments as well as conservation authorities in some provinces.

Under Canadian constitutional law, both federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction over

environmental issues, including water management (Constitution Act (UK) 1867).

Table 2 highlights some responsibilities shared amongst the different levels of government, from an

Ontario perspective.

Watershed

Approach

Legislation and

Governance

Asset

Management

Integrated Risk

Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology

Integrated

Financial Planning

One Water

Framework

Table 2: Responsibilities at different levels of government. Source: CVC

Federal Provincial Municipalities Conservation Authorities

The federal government has

jurisdiction over fisheries (Fisheries

Act 1985), navigation

(Navigational Protection Act 1999),

federal lands (Canadian

Environmental Protection Act

1985), and international relations,

which includes boundary waters

shared by the United States

(International Boundary Waters

Treaty Act 1985).

The federal government is also

responsible for establishing

national standards and policies on

environmental and health issues

such as drinking water quality

standards (Environment Canada

2015). National leadership for

water management is the role of

the Minister of the Environment

(Department of the Environment

Act 1985). This includes

cooperating and consulting with

provincial governments and

agencies with similar water

resource management objectives

(Canada Water Act 1985).

The Constitution Act grants

provincial governments jurisdiction

over water management

(Constitution Act 1867). Provincial

powers related to water resource

management include public lands,

municipal institutions, local works

and undertakings, non-renewable

resources, property and civil rights,

and shared jurisdiction over

agriculture (Constitution Act 1867).

To facilitate water management,

provincial governments rely on

numerous government

departments and agencies and

create policies, legislation, and

programs (de Loe 2008).

Provincial legislative powers

include, but are not limited to: flow

regulation; authorization of water

use development; water supply;

pollution control; and thermal and

hydroelectric power development.

(Environment Canada 2015).

Municipalities are generally

responsible for local administration

and operation of water management

services.

Municipalities are empowered by

provincial legislation that sets out

municipal jurisdiction and

responsibilities with respect to certain

matters, such as the Municipal Act in

Ontario.

Generally, municipalities have

authority to create by-laws and

protocols to regulate water services

within their territory (Municipal Act

2001) and are also involved in land-

use and water systems planning.

Water management at the municipal

level often involves cooperation with

fellow municipalities (especially in

jurisdictions where there are two-tier

municipality structures) and the

Province (Municipal Act 2001).

In Ontario, conservation authorities are

another public body responsible for

water management.

Generally, conservation authorities have

watershed-based jurisdiction (Municipal

Act 2001).

The Conservation Authorities Act

(Conservation Ontario Natural

Champions 2013) grants conservation

authorities broad powers with respect to

water management, including the ability

to make regulations restricting and

regulating the use of water in or from

water bodies within their jurisdiction

subject to the approval of the provincial

Minister (Conservation Authorities Act

1990).

4.1.1 Barriers to integration and legal responsibilities across departments

Within levels of government, water management involves multiple ministries. Each has its own

overlapping mandates, priorities and accountabilities, which complicates the planning and

implementation of integrated water management. For instance, within the federal government

alone, more than 20 departments and agencies are responsible for various aspects of water

management (Environment Canada 2015).

The existence of various departments encourages specialization that often results in

departments acting in isolation, poor information-sharing practices, and confusion about roles,

responsibilities, and authority (Morris 2014).

This isolation presents difficulties when actors are faced with complex, interrelated problems

(Morris 2014). Although individual departments may understand the risks to their specific

infrastructure, they do not often look at how these systems and risks interact with the other

infrastructure systems. For example, building a larger stormwater pipe may be a simple solution

for increasing capacity to deal with more extreme weather events, but it might also put

downstream areas at more risk of flooding and erosion. It may also increase the levels of

contamination from non-point source pollutants and pose risks to downstream source water

protection, which would require more energy and/or expensive technologies to treat water to

the required standards.

Conventional tools and strategies do not tend to support an integrated approach. Water

managers need new educational tools that can support the implementation of an integrated

approach. One such example is the Great Lakes Commission’s project to raise awareness among

municipal officials about the financial and economic benefits of integrated water management.

Supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the project involves working with municipalities

to help them evaluate how they could reduce environmental impacts and financial costs by

better integrating the three water systems.

The various departments involved in water management may also have conflicting mandates

and priorities, and a lack of clear guidance as to which priorities should take precedence. The

numerous statutes relating to water management can make the legal framework complex and

cumbersome. The patchwork of legislation is often unclear about how statutes relate to others.

It is a huge administrative and operational challenge for those responsible for water

management to be familiar with all the related legislation and regulation (Merrit and Gore

2002). For example, in a paper commissioned for the Walkerton Inquiry, authors found that the

complex framework of legislation compromised the province of Ontario’s ability to provide

comprehensive drinking water services (Merrit and Gore 2002). Further, the multiple sources of

legislation can lead to regulatory fragmentation, which can prevent the implementation of more

expansive regulations that would better protect ecosystems, watersheds, water resources, and

human health (Craig 2008).

4.1.2 The roles of other actors

Administrative agencies

While governmental bodies take leadership, numerous administrative agencies and non-

governmental actors play a significant role in water resource management. For instance, the

Ontario Clean Water Agency (“OCWA”) is a Provincial Crown Agency that services municipalities,

First Nations communities, institutions and businesses providing water, wastewater and

stormwater management and infrastructure. Given the integral role of OCWA and other

administrative agencies, they should be actively involved in any attempts to integrate water

management.

Professional Associations

Professional associations can also play a key role in water management. Many can administer

professional certificate programs, facilitate knowledge-sharing amongst professionals, advise on

policy matters, and provide technical support (BCWWA 2015). Likewise, industry organizations

can play a key role in advocacy and public education (BCWWA 2015). The agricultural, oil and

gas, manufacturing, and forestry sectors, among others, impact water resources significantly

and their activities can impact water quality (Fraser Basin Council 2015). They are also important

stakeholders in risk management as they often rely on water as a business input (Fraser Basin

Council 2015). Environmental non-governmental organizations and watershed conservation

groups can also play an important role in community outreach, advocacy, environmental

monitoring, and restoration as they advocate for the protection of water resources, the

environment, and public health. Lastly, academic institutions may play a key role in water

management by conducting relevant research to inform decisions and educate professionals

and policy makers.

The public

Due to the “dramatic changes that water governance has undergone in Canada over the past

decade,” governments are seeking greater involvement of citizens in decisions about water

management (Hill). For instance, Alberta’s Water for Life Strategy uses a “shared governance

model” and adopts an overall watershed management approach, which involves a multi-

stakeholder partnership of government, industry, and non-government organizations (Alberta

Water Council 2013). The strategy is one of the main vehicles for coordinating water

management in Alberta and acts as a roadmap for government and its partners when taking

actions related to water quality and quantity and environmental concerns (Alberta Water

Council 2013). Similarly, Nova Scotia’s Drinking Water Strategy works with stakeholders to

develop watershed management plans and nutrient management plans. Lastly, in Ontario, the

Environmental Bill of Rights affords interested parties participation rights (Environmental Bill of

Rights 1993) and appeal rights (Hill 2013) in the development and approval of water related

legislation, standards, licenses and authorizations.

4.1.3 Legal management of a trans-boundary resource

Water’s dynamic, trans-boundary nature exacerbates this legislative complexity. While water

crosses borders, legislation generally applies to a specific jurisdiction. This misalignment has the

potential to aggravate disputes over the use and protection of water resources between

political jurisdictions and undermine the effectiveness of one jurisdiction’s water management

legislation (Alberta Water Council 2013). Along the same vein, regulators have difficulty

capturing non-point source pollution, such as runoff from municipalities and farms (often from

diffuse effluent sources), in legislation, which can make it difficult and expensive to implement

effective control mechanisms (Alberta Water Council 2013). Additionally, local governments are

often responsible for implementing regulations addressing non-point source pollution, but

coordination and incentives amongst local governments can be difficult (Environmental Bill of

Rights 1993).

Figure 6 depicts a fictitious example of how different guidelines and criteria that apply to

different municipalities across a watershed can also create barriers for a coordinated

management of resources to reduce risk. Harmonization of the various guidelines and criteria

across the different municipalities would help to ensure that a consistent approach is taken

when managing water systems. For example, municipalities in the upper part of the watershed

need to understand the drivers and risks that threaten their infrastructure and how their

activities put downstream municipalities at risk. With increased imperviousness, headwater

municipalities need to ensure that adequate groundwater recharge occurs and groundwater

supplies are maintained to reduce the risk of not being able to meet the demand for drinking

water. If they do not maintain the water balance, downstream municipalities may be at risk of

not being able to meet assimilative capacity targets due to reduced base flow.

Figure 6: Varying guidelines and standards across different municipalities within a watershed. Source: CVC

The challenge of water management integration is not new. In fact, the federal government

attempted to address the need for coordination with respect to water in 1987 through the

Federal Water Policy. It was created to address the management of water resources by

facilitating a supportive federal government that enabled the different agencies and

departments, other orders of government and industry to fulfill their responsibilities

(Environmental Bill of Rights 1993). However, the policy was never implemented and is of

limited relevance today (Eckstein and Hardberger 2008). The Canadian Council of Ministers of

the Environment, an intergovernmental forum comprised of environmental ministers from

federal, provincial, and territorial governments, has a mandate to develop national strategies,

norms, and guidelines for water supply and sanitation and attempts to ensure integration across

various bodies (Mandelker 1989). Lastly, the federal government, along with the Federal-

Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, has developed Guidelines for Canadian

Drinking Water Quality; however, these guidelines are neither binding nor enforceable and only

Nova Scotia and Alberta have fully adopted them (Mandelker 1989).

4.1.4 Legal issues associated with stormwater management

Since the legal risks associated with water and wastewater systems are well established, they

are more or less understood. However, this is not the case for legal risks associated with

stormwater management.

With increasing weather extremes, water damage has become the leading cause of property

damage and insurance claims (KPMG, 2014). Class action lawsuits over basement flooding and

damage due to sewer back-up; basement damage due to storm sewer blockage caused by heavy

rainfall and property damage due to severe rainstorms causing flooding are becoming more

widespread. Find more information in Appendix B.

Municipalities face many challenges with regard to stormwater management. Stormwater

infrastructure has evolved considerably since the 1970s, but many older neighbourhoods still

need retrofits to protect homes and businesses from the impacts of wet weather. Changes in

weather conditions add further strain on municipal sewer systems as they are unable to cope

with more intensive storms. Some of the challenges facing municipalities today include (Zizzo,

Allan and Kocherga 2014):

Lack of dedicated funding

Lack of information on guidance

Lack of pressure from leaders and decision makers to prioritize stormwater

management

Lack of authority to go beyond management standards

Lack of understanding of legal obligations

No prescribed “level of service” for stormwater systems

There are a growing number of related class action lawsuits against municipalities (Zizzo, Allan

and Kocherga 2014). These lawsuits often focus on the municipal failure to mitigate risk and

prevent damage.

Class action lawsuits are significant financial threats to municipalities and have already resulted

in settlements related to flooding. One example is the precedent setting class action lawsuit

brought forth by residents of the City of Stratford against the City of Stratford for flooding

resulting from July 28, 2002. The mediated settlement provided compensation totalling $7.7

million for more than 800 home owners (Zizzo, Allan and Kocherga 2014).

The insurance industry

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that insurance companies

may be forced to withdraw coverage in the casualty and property insurance sectors or face

bankruptcy as a result extreme weather damage (IPCC 2012).

Canada is the only G8 country that does not have homeowners insurance for overland flood

damage (Sandink 2013); however, flood insurance covers losses associated with sanitary sewer

back-ups. As municipalities further investigate damages, they are beginning to better

understand how storm sewers and sanitary sewer systems can impact one another. For

instance, in older neighbourhoods, the building codes that existed during their development

may have allowed for cross connections between storm and sanitary sewers. With extreme

weather events, storm sewer systems can be at risk of surcharging, making it easier for excess

water to enter the sanitary sewer system, bringing it over capacity. When that happens, water

can back up into basements.

Another scenario that poses significant risk is in older neighbourhoods where overland flow

routes for the major system have been altered resulting in more water ponding on the streets.

This scenario poses a significant risk to the sanitary systems, since water can enter through

manhole lids. This contributes a larger volume of water entering the sanitary system, potentially

increasing risk of sanitary sewer back, as well as flows entering the wastewater treatment

plants. Aside from increased liability concerns, these larger volumes can result in higher

treatment costs; and worse, it could contribute to bypasses that send untreated sewage into

receiving watercourses.

The IPCC (2012) has stated that the insurance industry cannot bear the financial losses

associated with climate change alone. If neighbourhoods are deemed “high-risk” areas they may

no longer be eligible for insurance protection or the premiums may become cost prohibitive and

the public could turn to government to recuperate losses through class action lawsuits.

4.2 Governance As previously stated, governments are now seeking greater involvement of citizens in decision-

making for managing risk to municipal water systems (Environment Canada 2015). To support

citizen engagement, emerging trends show that governments have a growing reliance on

economic instruments, partnerships, multi-stakeholder councils, and shared and collaborative

governance.

Despite these trends, governments have retained their role as central actors. Generally, this

creates a situation in which delegated responsibility does not correspond with decision-making

authority. To ensure legislative fragmentation does not lead to governmental paralysis, a

networking governance structure is imperative within the Canadian water sector.

4.2.1 Networked governance structure

A networked governance structure is a collaborative approach that includes multiple

stakeholders that have decision-making authority. Properly structured, networked governance

can address the challenge of jurisdictional and legislative fragmentation in the Canadian water

sector. The authors of this chapter proposed that the steering or controlling of such a network is

best achieved through a conservation authority model, as it exists in Ontario, operating at a

watershed level. This model reflects the imperative for integrated water management across

municipal boundaries, as well as for the adoption of the watershed as the de facto unit for water

management and governance for municipal water systems. Water is a flowing resource that

cannot be managed at a fixed jurisdictional scale. The watershed scale enables downstream and

upstream municipalities and other stakeholders to collaborate and come to agreements about

efficient and effective solutions that mitigate risk.

4.2.2 Municipal decision making

Municipalities are responsible for implementing legislation and delivering services. At this level,

lack of a holistic decision-making body further exacerbates fragmentation. Most current

municipalities have planning departments managing land use and community development,

while sewer, stormwater, and drinking water systems are handled by other departments. This

dispersed management results in a complex patchwork of actors and policies that generally do

not take the cumulative effects of managing land and water in silos into consideration.

In Canada, a single-tiered municipality or a two-tiered municipality can be responsible for water

management. In a two-tiered municipality, the regional municipalities often coordinate area-

wide service delivery to all local municipalities. Legislation assigns responsibilities to either

upper-tier or lower-tier municipality. Both municipalities may provide these services exclusively

or non-exclusively within their geographical boundaries. Regional municipalities are responsible

exclusively for water production, treatment and storage; and non-exclusively for the collection

of stormwater and other drainage from land.

Upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities must work collectively to manage risk by developing

integrated water management solutions. To achieve a seamless integration between upper and

lower-tier municipalities, governance structure and frameworks need to be revised and updated

to incorporate policies that allow local governments to integrate their initiatives with federal

and provincial plans. Find more on this subject in Appendix C.

In 2014, CVC, University of Guelph, McMaster

University and Dalhousie University coordinated a

National Consultation Workshop to solicit feedback

about different approaches to water management. 75

representatives from municipalities, provincial

ministries, post-secondary institutions, conservation

authorities and consulting firms participated. Graphs

seen throughout this report are based on participant

responses from the workshop.

4.2.3 An inter-jurisdictional approach to managing risks

Ecological boundaries—such as watersheds and subwatersheds—underline the importance of

governance systems that coordinate decisions across political boundaries.

Figure 7 shows that most National Consultation Workshop participants supported the

involvement of conservation authorities or watershed planners, municipalities, and the province

in decision-making processes for integrated inter-jurisdictional approaches to water

management

Question: What governance structures and/or policy reforms could improve the integration of inter-

jurisdictional water management? What would the decision maker complement look like?

Figure 7: Recommendations on decision making governance structure based on 2014 National

Consultation Workshop. Source: CVC

4.2.4 Components of successful network governance

As part of an effective network governance structure, the One Water approach can help address

hierarchical institutional arrangements, while adaptive management (AM) can assist with

addressing the need to make decisions in an environment of uncertainty. The One Water

approach provides a governance platform which allows for multiple-actor decision-making

processes at watershed scales, while AM enables decision making in the face of uncertainty

where policy is shaped through continuous feedback loops that create systematic

experimentation and learning.

With a network governance structure, municipalities and stakeholders are still able to fulfill their

water resource responsibilities with the added benefit of being able to have an integrative

approach to problem solving. Networked governance can leverage distributed capacities

brought by different actors who can contribute their unique skills and resources to generate

creative, collaborative, and complete solutions. However, network governance structure may be

1.9%

28.8%

61.5%

3.8% 1.9% 1.9%

Conservation authority/watershed planners

Conservation authority/watershed planners+ municipalities

Conservation authority/watershed planners + municipalities + province

Municipalities

Municipalities + province

Federal involvement

limited in effectiveness by hierarchical institutional arrangements and decision-making amidst

an environment of uncertainty.

Many parties representing several interests can make solving challenges a complex process.

However, as Figure 8 demonstrations, the 2014 National Consultation Workshop participants

consistently identified public consultation, shared discourse, and mutual understanding as high

priorities for effective governance with many stakeholders. Without these components,

participants noted, leadership, resources, and other attributes would make networked

governance less successful.

Question: What are the components of the proposed model governance structure?

Figure 8: Components of successful network governance. Source: CVC

As Figure 9 shows, participants from the 2014 National Consultation Workshop also prioritized

the following three options for better-integrated water management:

Creating a municipal water utility to operate all water systems under one roof

Coordinating municipal water plans and projects

Jointly advocating for provincial policy and regulatory changes to reduce legal barriers.

20%

19%

28%

17%

16%

High levels of leadership;

Necessary and sufficient membership;

Shared discourse and mutual understanding;

Sustainable resources;

A strong institutional basis

Question: Please prioritize the options for better integration

Figure 9: Priorities for better integrated water management. Source: CVC

4.3 Recommendations The first step for the federal government is to revive the 1987 Federal Water Policy to support

interprovincial integrated water management. One example of a related success is the Canada-

wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent, an initiative of the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (Cook, C.L. 2011). Institutions such as CCME

and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are instrumental in developing and championing

overarching policy frameworks.

At the provincial level, policy frameworks already exist and can form the building blocks for

coordinating and integrating framework across the province. Within provinces, to address

overlapping legislation and conflicting departmental mandates, legislation should clearly state

priorities. For instance, in Quebec, the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral

Zones and Floodplains under the Environmental Quality Act, invites communities to prepare and

submit watershed management plans but explicitly states that the provisions of the Forest Act

take precedence over such plans (Hill,xxxx). Similarly, under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, drinking

water receives privileged protection over other uses or regulations.1

The examples discussed above are attempts to ensure integration; however none of the past or

current attempts led to efficient and effective integrated water management.

Overcoming the challenges presented by existing legislation and the jurisdictional fragmentation

of responsibility is best overcome by a networked governance structure where all those with

1 Hill at p. 325.

3%

23%

28%

46%

There are no barriers for better integration of all water services

Jointly advocate for policy and rule changes at a provincial level to identify and eliminatelegal barriers to bring water, wastewater and stormwater under one municipality only

Coordinate all water related plans and projects for the municipality in consultation withupper tiers

Create a water utility to operate the water systems of the municipality, similar to powerutilities in municipalities

decision making authority are involved in making informed decisions on a scale appropriate to

the dynamic, trans-boundary nature of water – a watershed scale. It is proposed that the

steering or controlling of such a network is best achieved through a Conservation Authority

model, as it exists in Ontario, operating at a watershed level. This reflects the imperative for the

water sector to integrate across municipal boundaries and for the adoption of the watershed as

the de facto unit for water management and governance for municipal water systems.

This section is a summary of research carried out by University of Toronto & Laura Zizzo Allan

Demarco. For more information, review Appendix B and Appendix K.

Watershed Planning Approach 5

Watershed planning is another tool available to municipalities looking to manage their risk when

transitioning towards a One Water approach to water management.

Municipalities across Canada recognize the value of watershed planning. In Ontario, for

instance, where the Conservation Authority Act has been in place for more than 60 years,

watershed planning is a fundamental tool that informs land-use planning.

Today, watershed planning has taken two very distinctive paths. Conservation authorities and

similar organizations have participated in traditional watershed/subwatershed planning that

focuses on improving and maintaining environmental health. Developers and municipalities

have focused on a subwatershed planning process that focus more on development. The

differences between these two approaches are significant. Where traditional subwatershed

planning has focused on the fundamentals of managing cumulative effects, increasing natural

cover, and managing stressors, development-driven subwatershed planning has focused on

determining servicing needs and understanding development constraints.

Municipalities use additional planning strategies, including servicing and settlement plans,

master plans, and community improvement plans. These types of land-use planning tools are

limited by municipal boundaries but play an important role in how water, wastewater, and

stormwater management systems are serviced.

As the Legislation and Governance section discusses, watershed and subwatershed boundaries

introduce an optimal approach for integrated water management. In fact, respondents from the

Watershed

Approach Legislation and

Governance

Asset

Management

Integrated Risk

Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology


Planning

One Water

Framework

2014 National Consultation Workshop agree that integrated water management must involve

conservation authorities (or watershed planners), municipalities and the province in the

decision-making process, and they should plan based on the biophysical context of the area (see

Figure 10 below).

Consultations completed with stakeholders during the 2014 National Consultation Workshop

showed a growing concern that traditional land-use planning often results in costly and difficult

remedial actions and often lacks consideration for environmental capacity. Integrating

watershed and subwatershed planning with municipal master planning process can help to bring

environmental concerns to the forefront.

Question: Based on the watershed planning process presented, could your municipality implement this

proposed approach?

Figure 10: Support from practitioners on the watershed planning process. Source: CVC

5.1 Proposed next steps for watershed planning Watershed and subwatershed planning tools provide essential information on ecological

attributes and functions within a watershed. Incorporating this information into the municipal

master planning process can help municipalities’ better address environmental impacts from

urbanization and make more informed decisions.

The following section outlines an approach that Canadian practitioners at the 2014 National

Consultation Workshop supported as one of the best means of integrating municipal and

watershed planning. This efficient approach provides a bridge from traditional approaches and

offers consistency in the planning process.

14%

30% 50%

4% 2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Maybe

Disagree

5.1.1 Watershed and subwatershed plans

Typically, watershed management plans are environmental planning documents developed on a

watershed basis (> 1,000 km2) that characterize major environmental features and functions of a

river watershed or lake basin. They also propose management strategies and implementation

activities. Watershed management plans include strategies focused on environmental and land

use issues at a watershed scale. These strategies are often linked to municipal official plans,

which set out the objectives and policies that are used to guide development. Ideally, official

plans should contain goals and targets that align with broader watershed management

strategies. Similarly, subwatershed management plans are documents that define

environmental features and functions at a finer scale than watershed plans, typically 50 to 200

km2.

While watershed plans provide watershed-wide policy and directives that aim to provide

guidance to upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, subwatershed plans provide further detail

to address local environmental issues to guide lower-tier municipalities.

The watershed planning process is an adaptive management approach to land use planning and

as such is an on-going planning process. Monitoring to test assumptions and assess how well

management solutions are working is important and fundamental to the process. Monitoring

results can be used to update and refine management solutions in the future and also feed into

master planning process.

The goals and objectives developed for the subwatershed will influence the choices that

municipalities and agencies make about the area. Study findings also allow the public to share

input and track progress.

5.1.2 The municipal master planning approach

Municipalities prepare several master

plans for infrastructure, including master

servicing (water and wastewater) and

drainage (stormwater). Master plans are

usually developed in conjunction with

land-use plans and policies such as

strategic plans. They guide and support

official plan reviews, development charge

bylaw reviews, growth-related planning strategies, the preparation of capital works and

operating budgets, and the final design of the preferred solutions.

Master plans generally follow a study process with multiple phases and are similar to the

watershed/subwatershed planning process. This is usually conducted through the Class EA

process that has 5 phases:

1. Identify problem opportunity

2. Identify reasonable alternative solution

CVC is currently developing a

guide for completing an

integrated stormwater master

plan to be released in 2016.

3. Identify alternative methods of implementation for preferred solution

4. Compile all relevant study into an environmental study report

5. Implementation and monitoring.

Master plans are completed within municipal boundaries and typically do not integrate water,

wastewater and stormwater. This is likely due to the division of responsibilities between upper

tier and lower tier municipalities. They also do not typically include the capacity of the receiving

system to withstand the cumulative impacts of changes to land use. Traditional master plans do

not take into account the issues that may be occurring outside of the municipal boundaries as

part of the planning process, and typically they do not consider watershed targets. However

these traditional practices are slowly changing, as more municipalities are starting to look at the

needs of the watershed during the planning process.

5.1.3 Sustainability Plan

Conservation authorities typically carry out watershed and subwatershed management plans,

while municipalities undertake master plans. As outlined earlier in the section, watershed and

subwatershed studies focus on aspects within the geographic boundaries of a watercourse

drainage area. Master Plans focus on performance and capacity municipal infrastructure within

a municipal boundary, such as sewer infrastructure. The master plans that result from this

approach tend to be centred on infrastructure, consisting primarily of storm and combined

sewer systems, and end-of-pipe facilities. The 2014 National Consultation Workshop revealed

that municipalities are focused primarily on managing tablelands. Often the watercourse is

outside the responsibility of the municipalities.

Sustainability plans are the proposed approach to develop an integrated management

framework for municipal water systems including drinking water, wastewater and stormwater

systems. As shown in both Figure 11 and Appendix D, the integrated plan combines the

watershed/subwatershed plans with the municipal master plans for drinking water, wastewater

and stormwater.

To assist with successful sustainability plan delivery, stakeholders, practitioners and survey

participants from the National Consultation Workshop have identified the need to develop

targets specific to in-stream needs that municipalities can adopt to dictate servicing needs. The

majority (81%) of the 2014 National Consultation Workshop participants agree or strongly agree

that watershed targets can help establish infrastructure targets (see Figure 11 below). As well,

practitioners identified the need to re-define stormwater as a resource to improve its

management. In the same respect, practitioners identified the need to begin using the right

water for the right needs. For example, many resources go into making water potable, but a

significant amount of that water is used for flushing toilets, which does not require treated

water.

Question: Can setting up watershed targets assist in setting infrastructure targets?

5.2 Recommendations Feedback from the National Consultation Workshop indicated that watershed targets should

include both water quality and water quantity, reflect the capacity of the natural environment,

and consider climate change. Many municipalities set targets for stormwater that include flow

and water quality. However they often neglect setting targets for the natural environment and

natural based practices such as green infrastructure, stream naturalization, or enhanced natural

heritage systems. Targets should be set in collaboration between conservation

authorities/watershed planners and municipalities.

Despite the challenge of doing so, participants agreed that the Province should set and enforce

targets.

This section is a summary of research carried out by Credit Valley Conservation Authority .

More information can be found in Appendix D.

36%

45%

14%

3% 2%

Strongly Agree Agree Maybe Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 11: National Consultation Workshop respondents agree that watershed targets could inform infrastructure targets. Source: CVC

Asset Management 6

Asset management plans (AMPs) are the third tool in developing a One Water approach. AMP’s

are intended to provide the basis for lowering infrastructure renewal costs, extending asset life,

and ensuring funding for sustained growth by identifying efficiency gains, cost avoidance and

cost effectiveness. A standardized overview of asset management (ISO 55000), provides

guidance regarding establishment, implementation, maintenance and improvement was

developed in 2014 (see The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd. 2014). However, standards for asset

management are not currently enforced in Canada. Appendix E contains additional information

regarding advanced asset management pertaining to water, wastewater and stormwater

infrastructure. While the desired strategies and data for AMP are available, implementation is

challenging. A large amount of data is needed to properly characterize the risks to

infrastructure performance.

The overarching goal of all AMPs is to maintain an acceptable Level of Service (LoS) at the lowest

life-cycle cost while concurrently operating with an acceptable level of risk. The framework for

implementation of an AMP is based on five core issues:

1. Current state of assets

2. Level of service

3. Critical assets

4. Minimum life-cycle cost

5. Long-term funding plan

One of the most challenging of these issues is the determination of current asset state. Data

are needed to characterize the condition of an asset and allow assessment of risk. Condition

assessments to characterize risk typically consist of four stages (Sangster, 2010):

Watershed Approach Legislation and

Governance

Asset

Management Integrated Risk

Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology


Planning

One Water

Framework

1. Information review and the identification of knowledge gaps

2. Evaluation of consequence/risk of failure

3. Evaluation of options for asset inspection

4. Definition of current asset condition

This chapter provides an overview of some of the issues of risk implementation of AMP’s. More

details are provided in Appendix E.

6.1 Condition assessment and defining the level of service The Province of Ontario requires any municipality seeking provincial capital funding to provide a

detailed AMP indicating how any proposed project falls within it. However, development of an

accurate and comprehensive AMP requires detailed data pertaining to water, wastewater and

stormwater infrastructure, which many municipalities do not have. A 2012 survey of 346

Canadian municipalities demonstrated a substantial need for improved data assembly.

Specifically, the survey indicated 41% of municipalities had no data on the condition of their

water distribution pipes; 48% had no data on water transmission pipe condition; 33% had no

data on their wastewater linear assets; and 53% had no data on their stormwater linear assets

(CIRC 2012). Many municipalities use purely age-based assumptions of asset condition. This lack

of available information on the current condition of infrastructure poses a significant barrier to

system integration.

Question: What do you consider to be the top three barriers to implementing advanced asset

management practices in Canada?

Figure 12: National Consultation Workshop participants identify barriers to implementing an advanced asset management practice in Canada. Source: CVC

Figure 12 shows feedback from the 2014 National Consultation Workshop and indicates the top

three barriers to implementing an advanced asset management practice in Canada:

Lack of adequate data required for analysis and planning;

Difficulty developing useful service-level measures and targets; and

Complexity, effort and cost of implication.

Age-based rate of deterioration curves are less accurate than information that can be attained

from emerging technologies such modular robotic inspection, electromagnetic inspection or

parameter-based procedures using data mining such as those described in Harvey & McBean

(2014; 2014a). However, these more advanced methods of asset assessment are typically

perceived as having high associated costs and cost uncertainty. The cost of localized assessment

and rehabilitation is on average only 5% of the cost associated with complete replacement

(Steffens et al. 2012). Basing rehabilitation and replacement decisions solely on infrastructure

14%

16%

20% 19%

13%

7% 10% 1%

Lack of internal capacity/skill

Complexity, effort and cost of implementation

Lack of adequate data required for analysis and planning

Difficulty developing useful service-level measures and targets

Concerns about increased funding for maintenance at theexpense of new capacityInternal staff resistance to change

Perception that asset management practices increase financialand operational riskStaff/union concerns about potential job loss

age may result in the misallocation of funds to replace assets that have useful life remaining. An

improved basis for risk characterization has considerable merit.

The most common type of defect in water distribution systems is pipe leakage due to structural

damage or faulty connections. More than 8% of watermains in North America are beyond their

useful life (Folkman 2012). Pipe failure results in an array of consequences, including increased

operation and maintenance costs; decreased hydraulic capacity; contaminant ingress; potable

water egress, and damage to surrounding infrastructure. Seventy percent of respondents in the

first Canadian Municipal Infrastructure Survey indicated that reducing leakage and breaks, and

improving water quality are critical or very critical (CATT 2014). Leaks from large-diameter water

transmission pipelines make up less than 5% of the total number of leaks in a system, yet

account for more than 50% of the total water being lost due to leaks. Therefore, municipalities

tend to focus leak detection and condition inspection on the largest diameter pipes in their

system. For detailed information please refer to Appendix B.

Determining the condition of linear sewer assets typically buried underground is more difficult

due to the fact that these assets are “out-of-sight and out-of-mind.” Municipalities commonly

employ closed-circuit television (CCTV) to evaluate the interior condition of sewer pipes.

Although CCTV technologies provide valuable information, they are expensive and time-

consuming. As a result, only small sections of the overall system are evaluated and significant

portions of assets remain uninspected, generating unknown risk. Additionally, CCTV

technologies often miss defects that are hidden from the field-of-view by obstructions and are

incapable of imaging below the water line.

Compounding the issues associated with asset management and condition inspection are the

influences of urbanization and climate change. Urbanization and corresponding land

developments result in decreased groundwater infiltration and increased demands on

stormwater conveyance. In addition, increased population density places greater demands on

both water and wastewater infrastructure. Determining the level of risk requires the

determination of the required level of service and the identification of critical assets (key stages

in implementing effective AMPs); and is predicated on estimations of future conditions. Level of

service is typically developed based on financial, environmental, and community/organizational

objectives. Quality, capacity, reliability and cost are all issues that must be considered when

managing risk. However, it is difficult to formulate precise levels of service due to changing

climate and its effects on water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.

6.2 Tools for integration This section describes some of the tools that may assist municipalities in achieving effective

integration:

Identifying key drivers of risk

Clearly, there are many risks associated with municipal water. In response, it is necessary to look

at the key drivers creating these risks. This will help to focus on how to manage these risks. The

top drivers of risk, as identified in Chapter 3, are population growth and urbanization; aging

infrastructure; and climate change. Survey respondents from the National Consultation

Workshop not only identified the above as the drivers of highest priority, but also expressed the

need for an integrated approach to the management of these risk. For instance, higher intensity

storms as a result of a changing climate must be considered in tandem with changing surface

cover when designing stormwater management systems.

Creating effective data sharing

Data sharing is a key to attaining integration. It can be achieved by improving communication

between various municipal departments/employees which rely on, and update, similar

information. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are now being widely implemented, allowing

for efficient sharing of asset information (condition, capacity, location, etc.) between different

divisions of city employees. An effective GIS platform provides an enormous advantage in terms

of information availability and is key to understanding the magnitude of risks. GIS improves

access to a wide range of information which allows water managers and regulators to better

coordinate the development and management of water, land and related data sources, and

avoid the ‘pillar’ mentality of assembly of information.

Improved asset management software

Software programs for asset management of buried infrastructure have made enormous gains

in recent years, providing improved mechanisms to understand the current infrastructure risks

that exist in a community. Thirty-one percent of all municipalities in Canada currently rely

strictly on expert opinion when evaluating asset condition (determined based on age, estimated

degradation, and observed failures), with no visual or structural inspection (FCM 2012). Without

available information, the extent of risk cannot be established (Harvey et al. 2014; Harvey and

McBean 2014(a); Ahn et al. 2005). Lack of maintaining assets and absence of data to allow for

effective prioritization initiatives under constraints of limited budgets indicates there is limited

ability to respond/prioritize to manage the risks in the assets (Harvey and McBean

2014(b)(c)(d)).

Assembly of information using tablets and software

Efficient mechanisms of information assembly and uploading are not being used to the extent

that is needed. The use of tablets or any other portable communication technologies allows

municipal workers to remotely search and update central information storage to ensure

municipalities have the most accurate knowledge about conditions of assets. Having the public

report infrastructure failures via Twitter or other social media is another option.

Directed focus on information available online

Being able to effectively identify key documents on the Internet is essential to understand how

various governments (municipal, provincial, federal) are proceeding with asset management

planning. Access to the most effective strategies to help municipalities understand risks and to

integrate the management of these risks into day-to-day activities is essential. A specific tool –

The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix, described in Chapter 3, provides direction to specific

types of references to the technical literature.

Collaboration, partnership, policy options and constraints and legal implications

Understanding constraints, implications, opportunities and pitfalls are essential in gaining an

understanding of how to integrate risk management. Hard data is required, as informed

decisions cannot be made on instinct and educated guesses alone. High costs and duplication of

data collection can be avoided by municipalities working together and collaborating to gather

asset management data.

6.3 Adapting to Climate Change As described in previous chapters, increasing temperatures and growing intensity of

precipitation are elevating risks to water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. Elevated

temperature increases domestic water consumption patterns, and consequently increases the

demand for potable water and distribution capacity, and larger quantities of sewage (See

Appendix F). More intensive rainfall events lead to larger volumes of stormwater runoff, and

increase the risk of water backup into basements. Early snowmelt in conjunction with heavy

rainfall may result in increased risk of catastrophic flooding, which results in death and injury,

damage to roads and buried infrastructure, contamination of source waters, and municipal

service disruption.

Aging municipal infrastructure exasperates the risks driven by climate change and urbanization.

In neighbourhoods with combined sewers, a cracked sanitary sewer pipe will release more

hazardous material when flow is at a maximum. A clogged storm sewer is more likely to

overflow when conveying stormwater at full capacity. Climate change and urbanization

influence required levels of service and therefore necessitate the implementation of advanced

asset management.

Many municipalities within Canada have communicated their concern with regard to flood risk

and the need for access to regional and local climate projections. In Figure 13, results from 2014

National Consultation Workshop show that municipalities need guidance on updating floodplain

maps and intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves, as well as toolboxes for evaluating

adaptation strategies.

Question: In which of the following areas associated with climate change would further research and

guidance assist your municipality in infrastructure planning? Choose your top three priorities in order.

Figure 13: Feedback on areas of further research for climate change and infrastructure planning. Source: CVC

General Circulation Models (GCMs) and related tools have been developed in the scientific

community to provide essential data about future climatic conditions (e.g. annual and monthly

averaged temperature, precipitation). The interpretation of climate model outputs and use of

this data for municipal infrastructure planning and management typically requires professional

expertise in meteorology, statistics, modeling, and analyses. These requirements pose huge

challenges for municipalities.

The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix (Appendix A) introduces basic knowledge of climate

projections, covering the tools and techniques of GCMs, downscaling, and scenarios resulting

from climate change. This knowledge can help municipalities to collect and make use of climate

projections from databases provided by a variety of organizations.

It is important to understand that GCMs are only accurate with regard to the assumed emission

scenario, and all climate projections have considerable uncertainties in their projections.

Improved understanding of the uncertainties present within these estimates and variations

between models and scenarios is necessary to produce defensible solutions in municipal

infrastructure planning and management.

12%

18%

15% 16% 17%

10% 12%

Development of a case study reference database

Access to regional and local climate projections forinfrastructure design life.

Database of climate change impacts identified by and forCanadian municipalities

A toolbox for evaluating adaptation strategies.

Guidance on approaches being used, action plans, andimplementation steps to follow.

Transfer of knowledge on climate change uncertaintiesfrom academia to municipalities.

Guidance on combined use of different models for climatechange impact assessment (e.g. general circulationmodels, rainfall-runoff models, etc.)

Identification of vulnerable components in municipal stormwater systems usually involves the

use of IDF curves and floodplain maps. IDF curves serve as a medium between historical rainfall

records and the design of minor stormwater drainage systems (e.g. roof leaders, foundation

drainage, gutters and underground pipe systems). IDF curves are statistical characterizations of

historical rainfall records and reflect the rainfall intensities that can be expected with a given

possibility of occurrence, for different rainfall durations. Floodplain maps delineate areas that

will be submerged during high river flows.

IDF curves and floodplain maps are likely to change under changing climate conditions. Case

studies have demonstrated increased rainfall intensities (Amec 2012; Finnis 2012; Jakob and

Lambert 2009; Ouranos 2008; Srivastav et al. 2014) and increases in high flow and flood extent

(Turkkan et al. 2011; Laforce et al. 2011). Using updated IDF curves and floodplain maps,

possible failures in municipal infrastructure can be identified and actions can be taken to reduce

consequence and/or probability of failure.

To update IDF curves for future climate, rainfall records are simulated utilizing GCM projections,

and then statistically analyzed to produce future IDF curves. An alternative approach is to

predict statistical parameters directly from GCM projections, using regression or other

techniques.

In addition to rainfall records, delineation of floodplain maps requires information such as

snowpack regimes of snowmelt, rainfall runoff relationships, time of concentration, river

routing, and river morphology, which are all subject to change. Hence risk, in accordance with

climate and land-use changes. Therefore, updating floodplain maps requires projections of both

future climates and land-use evolution.

Appendix F provides case studies showing data and models applied to update IDF curves and

floodplains, covering municipalities from British Columbia to Atlantic Canada.

Updated IDF curves and floodplain maps are based on climate change projections, which are

uniquely applicable to specific greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Therefore, multiple emission

scenarios based upon different models with multiple runs are recommended. All model outputs

must be considered as equally possible future conditions.

An enormous amount of guidance and information is available online to help municipalities

implement strategies to adapt to changing climate. Appendix E provides a list of useful

resources and tools relevant to Canadian users that help municipalities in finding solutions

pertinent to their local management and philosophy.

Climate change adaptation strategies need to be evaluated under the framework of integrated

risk management. The risks driven by climate change pose cascading effects on all water

infrastructures, such as pollution intrusion to groundwater that is under the direct influence of

surface water during high flows, water borne diseases outbreaks, backup of sewage into homes,

etc. The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix summarizes a comprehensive analysis of drivers

and risks between infrastructures.

This section is a summary of research carried out by University of Guelph. For more

information see Appendix E.

Integrated Risk Assessment 7

Integrated risk management is the next tool that can help us determine the complex risks that

threaten current water infrastructure. The complexity of these risks is expected to impact a

municipality’s ability to meet the required levels of service for all water, wastewater, and

stormwater services to varying degrees. Municipalities will need to understand how their

infrastructure is vulnerable to climate change, aging, and population growth. Identifying the

components of infrastructure within a system that are highly vulnerable to these risks enables

municipalities to develop cost-effective engineering, operations, and policy solutions (e.g. see

Tran et al. 2008). To ensure sustainable future delivery of water services, municipalities will

need to participate in risk assessments that reflect a watershed scale approach. This will help

municipalities to understand how to integrate risk management.

Infrastructure provides a vital service to society and its safety, reliability and economic viability

are extremely important. The financial consequences of asset failure and loss of service due to

repairs, insurance claims, and disruption is costly and the financial liability is potentially

substantial. The example in Figure 14 illustrates the costs associated with a failure of water

infrastructure on Finch Avenue in Toronto. The cost to replace the failed culvert was less than

1% of the total costs associated with that culvert’s failure. Further insights into the case for

fixing leaks are provided in Centre for Neighbourhood Technologies (2013).


Governance

Asset Management Integrated Risk

Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology


Planning

One Water

Framework

Figure 14: Failure costs associated with Finch Avenue culvert. Source: City of Toronto 2011.

7.1 Barriers and challenges In Ontario, the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure‘s Building

Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans highlights the management of risk as

part of an asset management strategy. It requires the evaluation of an asset based on its

potential risks through comparative analysis. Risks of each asset are scored based on both

quantitative and qualitative measures. Similar guidelines across other provinces can promote a

sustainable adaptation mechanism for risk vulnerabilities.

The lack of research on reducing risk failure to stormwater assets is another barrier to

integration. Figure 15 indicates the response on research barriers from participants at the

National Consultation Workshop.

Question: In the future, which infrastructure will require the most research to reduce the risk of

failure due to climate change, aging infrastructure and/or urbanization?

Figure 15: Indication of lack of research on reducing failure risk. Source: CVC

4% 7% 17%

72%

Water treatment and distribution

Sewage conveyance and treatment

Combined sewer systems

Stormwater conveyance

Considering risk at the watershed scale provides a holistic approach to stormwater management

and interacting assets. For example, the City of Calgary completed a risk assessment in 2011 that

identified forest fires as a threat. With climate change causing drier temperatures, forest fires

will be a factor to consider, as well as their potential impact to source water quality. This

highlights the need to incorporate the interdependency of the ecosystem into the holistic

approach to risk assessment.

While many municipalities can recognize the importance of risk assessments, conducted them

can come with its own set of challenges. Figure 16 shows feedback from the participants at the

National Consultation Workshop on the barriers that municipalities face in conducting risk

assessments.

Question: What do you consider the top 3 barriers to conducting a risk assessment of the infrastructure

in your municipality/ organization?

Figure 16: Barriers inhibiting completion of risk assessment. Source: CVC

The responses in Figure 16 indicate that significant shifts required addressing risk and

vulnerability faced by municipalities.

The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (CIRC) from 2012 indicates that most water

infrastructure is in fairly good condition. However, these data are merely snapshots of the

conditions of the assets. The CIRC also found that asset management is, and will continue to be,

a critical activity to maintain and improve levels of service under the financial constraints that

14% 16%

14%

17% 22%

12% 5%

Don’t know enough about it (lack of capacity/skills) Too complex and resource intensive

Lack the data required for analysis

Little or no support internally and/or at thedecision-making levelFocus on short term, not long term

Too Costly

Perception about increased liability if risksare known

municipal governments experience. As a result, the Report Card partners issued an Asset

Management Primer in September 2013. In the context of risk management, the Primer

indicates:

“Understanding and managing the risks associated with the failure of an asset is a key element

in many AMPs. The risks in municipal infrastructure are impacted by the physical condition of

the asset and the social, economic and environmental consequences that would occur if the

asset fails to provide the service for which it was designed.” (Canadian Infrastructure Report

Card- Asset Management Primer 2014)

A sound asset management plan can establish the exposure and sensitivity of infrastructure to

threats.

7.2 Risk management framework Once you know the physical condition of your water, wastewater and stormwater assets, it is

important to then understand the vulnerability of the infrastructure to risks such as climate

change. It is also important to understand how the different infrastructures can impact each

other. Risk management framework can help to accomplish this.

ISO 31000 (see Figure 17) is a risk management framework that provides principles and process

for managing risk. It can help organizations increase the likelihood of achieving objectives,

improve the identification of opportunities and threats, and effectively allocate and use

resources for risk treatment.

Figure 17: ISO 31000 Risk Management. Source: ISO

7.3 Tools for assessing the vulnerability of water infrastructure There are many tools that can help municipalities further assess the risks and vulnerability of

their water infrastructure. Each tool is unique and addresses a range of risk-associated concerns.

This section will focus on some of the most useful tools available for assessing risk and

vulnerability.

7.3.1 ICLEI Changing Climate, Changing Communities Framework

The International council of Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) has developed a milestone

framework - Changing Climate, Changing Communities - to guide local government practitioners

through a process of initiation, research, planning, implementation and monitoring for climate

adaptation planning. This five-step process (see Figure 18) is supported by an online interactive

tool, Building Adaptive and Resilient Communities (BARC), which is designed to assist

communities in adapting to the impacts of climate change through the development of a

Municipal Climate Change Adaptation Plan. This process can be applied at various levels within a

community or municipality:

At the single sector or department level

For a municipal operations plan covering all departments

For a community wide plan with multi-stakeholder, community involvement

Community driven for a vulnerable sector within a municipality (e.g., residents from a flooded area)

Figure 18: ICLEI’s five-step milestone framework. Source: ICLEI, 2011.

The Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association produced a guidance document and workbook called 7 Steps to Assess Climate Change Vulnerability in Your Community, which is an example of the ICLEI framework being applied. .

1. Identify the types of climate and weather-related issues that have affected your community;

2. Locate where these issues have occurred or could occur in your community;

3. Assess what infrastructure has been or will be impacted;

4. Identify the residents who have been or will be most affected as well as those who can provide assistance in the community; 5. Assess which economic sectors have been or will be most impacted by the issues;

6. Identify how the natural environment has been or will be affected; and

7. Determine the best ways to address the issues identified. The workbook produced for Newfoundland for example, includes climate (current, future predictions) information as well as expected trends and impacts from, for example, precipitation (intensity, frequency), temperature (average, extremes) and sea-level rise.

7.3.2 Residential Basement Flooding Vulnerability Assessment Tool-Municipal Risk

Assessment Tool (MRAT)

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) launched its Municipal Risk Assessment Tool (MRAT) in

2013 through pilot applications in three Canadian cities: Fredericton, Hamilton, and Coquitlam.

MRAT focuses on basement flooding risks, and more specifically on mapping areas vunerable to

flooding within a city. The tool collects data from municipal infrastructure (inventory and

condition), land use, current and future climate, and insurance claims. Using the traditional

definition of risk, a formula considers the probability of climate events occurring in addition to

the exposure and vulnerability. The formula produces a result indicating the susceptibility of

infrastructure failure.

Figure 19: An illustration of MRAT basement flooding risk maps. Source: IBC MRAT.

7.3.3 Engineers Canada- Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee Protocol

Engineers Canada, with support from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) created the Public

Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) in 2005 to address engineering

concerns in regards to infrastructure risk related to climate change impacts. In 2008, PIEVC

created a protocol to guide engineers working with other professionals to assess the

vulnerability of infrastructure and develop adaptation solutions. The protocol helps assess

vulnerabilities in several related areas, such as planning, operations and maintenance of

infrastructure.

The protocol is a five-step process that systematically reviews historical climate information and

projects the nature, severity, and probability of future climate changes and events. It also

establishes the adaptive capacity of an individual infrastructure as determined by its design,

operation and maintenance. It includes an estimate of the severity of climate impacts on the

components of the infrastructure (i.e. deterioration, damage or destruction) to identify higher

risk components and the nature of the threat from climate change impacts. This information can

be used to make informed engineering judgement on which components require adaptation, as

well as how to adapt them (design adjustments, changes in operation or maintenance).

Figure 20: PIEVC Protocol Steps. Source: PIEVC.

Engineers Canada has completed the initial development and testing of a Triple Bottom Line

Decision Support Module, an extension of the PIEVC protocol. This tool evaluates adaption

recommendations from the protocol using analysis that includes social, environmental and

economic factors. This module is an additional tool to complement the protocol (as seen in

Figure 20).

Feedback from participants at the National Consultation Workshop suggests that very few

municipalities have used the tools from ICLEI, IBC, and PIEVC for risk assessment. This highlights

the need to promote these tools and raise awareness about the importance of risk assessment.

There are several tools and methodologies to assess risk that are not explored in this chapter.

Figure 27 shows other risk assessment tools and methodologies, as well as their capabilities.

Review of Tools for Assessing the Vulnerability of Watersheds A report to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Nelitz et al. (2013) provides examples of when vulnerability assessments are useful, including:

Providing insight into the actions needed to prevent loss of life, damages, or disasters.

Understanding vulnerability as a prerequisite for developing adaptation policies that promote equitable and sustainable development.

Anticipating where impacts may be greatest at a Canada-wide scale, setting priorities for regional assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies, and monitoring climate change effects.

Understanding the economic costs to communities and infrastructure due to extreme weather events (for example the costs from extreme weather events in Canada from 1996-2006 were greater than for all previous years on record combined).

Developing policies and adaptation plans for vulnerable areas, sectors, groups, etc. as well as reducing climate change risk.

The authors use the standard definition of risk in describing the vulnerability of watersheds, which comprises, as illustrated in the figure below:

Potential impact: exposure (to the hazard) and sensitivity (of the element to the hazard)

Adaptive capacity

Figure 21: Elements of Watershed Vulnerability Assessments (after Neiltz et al., 2013)

The location and timing of a vulnerability assessment will be affected by the availability of sufficient expertise, time, and financial resources. It was also found that indicators are used in some form in most vulnerability assessments. Throughout the literature, indices and indicators are often synonymously called themes, components, or sub-indices (index) and proxies (indicators). In their review, Nelitz et al. (2013) define an indicator as a single measure of a characteristic (e.g., water temperature), the units of which can be described by a particular metric (e.g., annual maximum temperature). An index is defined as a composite, or aggregate, measure of several indicators or indices. These terms are used even though they may not be consistent with the language of the original studies. They provide key considerations when identifying and selecting indicators, which include:

Appropriateness and relevance to dimension of interest;

Transparency (not too complicated, should be repeatable);

Feasibility (considering cost of data collection and time availability); and

Size and composition of each indicator (absolute vs. relative values, areal measure, etc.).

The tools in the report were selected to be representative of a broad range of water resource

issues, data needs, and technical capabilities. They are varied and range from indicator-based

approaches to sophisticated hydrological models that calculate exposure to flood events under

future projections of climate change. They also range from qualitative to quantitative

approaches that address a broad range of characteristics of social-ecological systems.

Figure 22: Capabilities and focus of relevant tools and reports. Source: WINA Report- When the Bough Breaks; Nov, 2014.

7.4 Sustainability Rating Tools Sustainability rating tools allow municipalities to compare infrastructure solutions to see which

ones offer the largest benefit. In general, sustainability rating tools include climate change risks

to infrastructure and buildings as part the assessment. Some provide very basic methodologies

on how to assess risks associated with natural hazards, including those from extreme weather.

The International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) produced the Sustainable

Infrastructure: Rating and Certification Tools report in 2012 which summarizes an extensive

international survey of these types of tools. The summary table is reproduced hereafter for

convenience. In the Canadian infrastructure context, two rating tools seem to offer the greatest

potential and are discussed in greater detail below: Envision (from the USA) and ISCA (from

Australia) (FDIC 2012).

7.4.1 Envision™ Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System

Envision™ is the product of a joint collaboration between Harvard University and the U.S.-based

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). It provides a framework for evaluating and rating

the community, environmental and economic benefits of all types and sizes of infrastructure

projects (ISI 2015). The tool evaluates, grades, and gives recognition to infrastructure projects

that use transformational, collaborative approaches to assess the sustainability indicators over

the course of the project's life cycle. Envision™ has assessment tools that can be used for

infrastructure projects of all types, sizes, complexities, and locations. These tools include:

1) Checklists:

An educational tool that helps the user become familiar with the sustainability

aspects of infrastructure project design. It can be used as a stand-alone assessment

to quickly compare project alternatives or to prepare for a more detailed assessment.

Structured as a series of Yes/No questions based on the Envision™ rating system. It is

organized into five categories and 14 subcategories.

2) Rating system:

Used by the project team to self-assess the project, or for a third-party, objective

review.

Includes a guidance manual and scoring system.

An economic optimization tool, construction and O&M phase credits, and other stages of the

Envision™ rating system are currently under development.

7.4.2 Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA)

The ISCA rating scheme (see http://www.isca.org.au/ for details) was developed and administered by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA). It is a rating scheme for evaluating sustainability across design, construction and operation of infrastructure. The ISCA rating scheme can be used to inform and assess most types of infrastructure including:

Transport Water Energy Communications

Airports Sewage and drainage Electricity Trans. Communications Networks

Bike paths and sidewalks

Storage and supply Gas pipelines

Ports and harbours

Railways

Roads

7.5 Recommendations There are currently no case studies that highlight an integrated approach to risk management

for all three water infrastructures at the watershed scale. Further work is needed to develop

case studies that highlight upper-tier and lower-tier collaboration in order to understand

infrastructure vulnerabilities caused by climate change at a watershed scale.

Case studies should demonstrate how upper and lower-tier municipalities could collaborate on

applying the protocol to identify adaptation recommendations that reduce climate impacts and

mitigate risk for all three water infrastructures. These recommendations could take the form of

integrating adaption measures into reconstruction or retrofitting projects that look at both grey

and green infrastructure solutions. Or adaptation could be making changes in operation and

maintenance practices that will extend the life of the assets. Further, recommendations can

include identifying what adjustments to codes, standards, and practices are needed to account

for future climate conditions. Through adaptation municipalities can lower the severity of

climate change impacts.

While all the tools reviewed here provide valuable information for engineers, asset managers

and decision-makers, the PIEVC Protocol has the engineering depth and breadth of application

to help communities large and small adapt to a changing climate. The methodologies developed

for risk assessments and climate change adaptation planning in the United States, Europe and

Australia are all valuable, but may not be as affordable and timely as the PIEVC Protocol in

engaging engineers who must work closely with other professionals to support the planning,

operation, maintenance, management and use the infrastructure to benefit society. The results

of a PIEVC Protocol assessment inform decision-makers to a level that is adequate to develop

cost-effective recommendations that adapt the highest risk components to improve their

resilience to climate impacts in ways other assessment tools may not. The use of the PIEVC

Protocol in Canada has provided the opportunity to make recommendations concerning the

review of selected infrastructure codes, standards and related instruments (CSRI) in light of the

changing climate.

Finally, it is important to note that most, if not all methodologies for the assessment of

infrastructure vulnerability to climate change, including those presented here, fit the general

ISO 31000 Risk Management principles and framework. In the medium to long-term, compliance

of all these methodologies with ISO 31000 would be a desirable outcome.

This section is a summary of research carried out in collaboration with Credit Valley

Conservation Authority and Guy Felio from Engineers Canada. For more information, please

refer to Appendix J.

Innovative Green Infrastructure Technologies 8

Innovative green infrastructure technologies are practices that can be implemented using the

one water approach. Currently, most municipalities make decisions about water resources

separately from land-use planning. In fact, decisions on water, wastewater, and stormwater

servicing are often made from the perspective of exclusive systems. While there has been

progress in better managing water and wastewater assets at the municipal level, the integration

of water, wastewater and stormwater has not been widely adopted. In fact, while most

municipalities have established water and wastewater asset management plans, they have often

overlooked stormwater infrastructure, even though poor management in this area could pose

risks for water and wastewater infrastructure, not to mention liabilities for municipalities. As

discussed in earlier chapters, aging infrastructure and climate change impacts exacerbate these

risks.

8.1 Stormwater risks and impacts linked to drinking water and wastewater systems This section highlights some of the potential risks associated with stormwater, its management,

and its links to drinking water and wastewater systems.

In many areas, development and urbanization are changing pre-development surface conditions

to predominantly impermeable surfaces, reducing the available areas for stormwater to

infiltrate. From drinking water and wastewater perspectives, the effects of these reductions can

include (after Konrad & Booth 2005):

Reductions in the available community surface drinking water supply systems (e.g.

reservoirs, lakes)


Governance


Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology


Planning

One Water

Framework

Reductions in groundwater availability within drinking water wells

Reductions in receiving water wastewater assimilative capacities due to streamflow

reductions

Loss of aquatic habitat due to streamflow reductions resulting in damages to overall

ecosystem health.

Additionally, the transport of pollutants in urbanized catchments represents a concern for

downstream environments, as well as drinking and wastewater systems. Common stormwater

contaminants found in developed and developing watersheds include (after Klein 1979; Hamel

et al. 2013; Wenger et al. 2009; WSA 2014):

Total suspended solids (TSS)

Nutrients (i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus)

Organic pollutants (e.g., pesticides, hydrocarbons)

Rubber and automotive fluids

Particulate matter

Trace metals (e.g., zinc, copper, lead)

Ultimately, the transport of these and other pollutants may result in eutrophication, fish kills,

pollutant bioaccumulation in the food chain, and pathogen contamination leading to loss of

recreational areas (US EPA 2003). These receiving water impacts also have the potential to

affect risk and management of drinking and wastewater systems, including:

Additional treatment requirements within drinking water systems as a result of reduced

surface water quality

Reduced assimilative capacity of receiving waterbodies, resulting in greater wastewater

treatment requirements prior to discharge.

Conventional stormwater management approaches can also lead to additional receiving water

concerns. Studies suggest that even minimal additions of impervious surfaces within a

watershed have consequences for stream health (Klein 1979; Tillinghast 2012). Urbanized

streams have been reported to have several differing characteristics when compared against

non-developed watercourses, including ‘flashier’ responses to rainfall events, increased

variability in flow rates, reduced base flows, and increased frequency of higher discharge events

(Klein 1979; Konrad & Booth 2005). These differences lead to several consequences: high

discharge velocities within receiving water environments causing significant downstream

erosion and scour and mobilization of additional sediment, destruction of downstream fisheries

habitats and ecosystems, and others.

Lastly, the increases in runoff flows and volumes due to urbanization of catchments and the use

of conventional stormwater management techniques lead to additional inflows in combined

sewer systems. These additional inflows have impacts on both receiving water environments

and wastewater management systems, including:

Additional treatment volumes to be managed by wastewater treatment plants

Additional taxation on existing conveyance infrastructure

Significant downstream ecosystem effects due to additional discharges to watercourses

from CSOs.

8.2 Stormwater management approaches and risks Stormwater management in both rural and urban developments has been a key responsibility of

Canadian municipalities for more than 100 years. Over time, many municipalities have moved

from combined sewer systems to dedicated stormwater management infrastructure, though

several older municipalities across Canada (including Toronto) still have legacy combined

systems. For systems both new and old, risk - as defined by the design considerations related to

both probability of input phenomena and consequences to these inputs - is still the main

concern in the design and implementation of any engineered stormwater management system.

This section outlines conventional and green infrastructure stormwater management

approaches.

8.2.1 Conventional stormwater management

The traditional approach for mitigating risks associated with stormwater management has been

to minimize consequences to persons and property driven by significant, low-probability design

storm rainfall events. By taking this approach, municipalities can address the consequences

related to the rainfall events with the highest levels of catastrophic risks to people and property.

However, the design of these systems do not often take into consideration the risks associated

with frequent storm events that have to be handled throughout the year, which, if managed

ineffectively, can create other issues.

Updated stormwater management and design guidelines prepared by some municipalities in

Canada have shifted to address both quantity and quality concerns. That being said, these

documents typically rely on design criteria related to the management of extreme precipitation

events using a dual drainage stormwater management approach consisting of piped

infrastructure in conjunction with overland flow management. The majority of stormwater

systems in service in Canada are based on conventional stormwater approaches, which are

focused on mitigating a single aspect of stormwater-related risk: peak flow management.

However, municipal guidelines are beginning to incorporate additional considerations and

criteria related to stormwater quality. For example, the City of Calgary has adopted criteria

relating to TSS reductions, with additional criteria potentially forthcoming (City of Calgary 2011).

By incorporating water quality considerations into stormwater management requirements,

updated stormwater guidance documents can support environmental protection and minimize

impacts associated with impervious surfaces and pollutant sources. However, conventional

stormwater approaches still prefer to collect and convey (rather than store and infiltrate); which

means that pre-development hydrology is still affected by post-development, adding to

potential risk.

There are also benefits of conventional stormwater systems. Stormwater professionals and

contractors have collective experience in the design, implementation, and construction of these

systems. There are extensive design guidelines based on years of experience, and these systems

have been in place and successful in reducing risks from extreme precipitation events for several

decades. Contractors are comfortable with construction techniques and requirements

associated with these projects. Their experience and knowledge helps provide thorough checks

against designs during the construction phase (Olorunkiya et al. 2012).

8.2.2 Green Infrastructure approaches and designs

Green Infrastructure are stormwater management systems and features in developed areas that

emphasize drainage and conveyance characteristics that mimic pre-development conditions.

Although green infrastructure has been defined separately by different levels of government,

academia, developers, and others, the following key points are relevant:

Identification of stormwater as a resource rather than nuisance

Maintaining natural hydrologic regimes

Implementing infiltration-based stormwater management and source control features

Minimizing site disturbances.

Strategies that use the same core concepts have been referred to by different names in other

studies, such as low impact development (LID’s), best management practices (BMPs), source

control practices (SCPs), sustainable urban drainage systems (SEPA 2014), and environmentally

sensitive design (US EPA 2010). Many of these other definitions either share some overlap with

the key concepts of the definition of green infrastructure given above, or represent components

of the LID approach.

Some of the common LID features and designs for managing stormwater runoff include:

Reduction of impervious surfaces through reduction of lane widths, the use of

alternative construction materials (e.g., permeable pavement), and greening of minor

traffic areas (e.g., residential back lanes)

Implementation of infiltration-promoting bioretention and biofiltration areas, such as

rain gardens, vegetative swales, and street runoff collection features (e.g., curb cuts to

depressed traffic medians)

Lot-scale stormwater management features, such as infiltration galleries and rain

barrels

Sub-dividing watersheds into smaller subcatchments with smaller and more distributed

stormwater management features

Reducing disturbances in new developments, keeping existing forests and vegetation.

Green infrastructure features can be implemented on a large scale at a site development level

with a more integrated approach, but also as supplemental features to existing stormwater

management systems. More information about specific green infrastructure features can be

found in documents such as Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking

Water (US EPA 2010), National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices (US EPA 2014),

and Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for

Future Research (Ahiablame et al. 2012).

The benefits of green infrastructure are well described in several documents published by both

governments as well as in academia, such as US EPA (2012), City of Edmonton (2011), and ICF

Marbek (2012). In general, green infrastructure features have been shown to reduce overland

flows and stormwater quantity, improve stormwater quality, and benefit the health of

downstream receiving waterbodies.

The following outlines the benefits of LID with a specific focus on issues within integrated water

systems (e.g., drinking and wastewater):

Stormwater quality and quantity: As an approach that includes features and planning with a

focus on the promotion of infiltration, the reduction of stormwater runoff generated by

frequent storm events is a significant benefit of green infrastructure implementation. By storing

and infiltrating these frequent storm events, a large percentage of the annually-generated

runoff can be managed close to its source, reducing the burden on pre-existing, aging

conveyance infrastructure. Although green infrastructure features are not intended to replace

engineered flood-control structures designed for extreme weather events (US EPA, 2007), these

design features help to reduce the severity of less extreme flood events due to the distributed

conveyance methods used in many integrated water management programs. Additional

benefits associated with increased infiltration of precipitation include maintenance of base flow

levels in urbanizing streams, as well as a potential reduction in particulate loading associated

with bed scour (Finkenbine et al. 2000).

One of the most significant improvements to stormwater quality as a result of green

infrastructure practices relates to the corresponding reduction in stormwater quantities. Better

infiltration correlates to a decrease in the amount of overland flow, resulting in decreased

opportunity for pollutants to be collected and transported to receiving waters (US EPA 2007).

Studies have also shown a reduction in common stormwater pollutant loadings in stormwater

collected after exiting vegetative swales, permeable pavement areas, and other LID features (US

EPA 2007). These and other water quality benefits allow a reduction in risk to downstream

environments and potentially provide benefit in the protection of drinking water sources.

There are many other positive impacts to stormwater quality and quantity associated with green

infrastructure, including increased groundwater recharge, pollution abatement, and greater

availability of water to terrestrial flora and fauna within the watershed.

Ecosystem health: Green infrasturcture practices have been shown to minimize negative

impacts to stream health, and also to be potentially applicable in retrofits and redevelopments

in heavily urbanized watersheds (Bernhardt and Palmer 2007).

8.2.2.1 Risks and Challenges for Green Infrastructure Implementation

Green infrastructure designs and concepts have been studied extensively for approximately 15

years. While conservation groups, academia, and other invested stakeholders have produced a

significant amount of information and research relating to the benefits of proper

implementation of green infrastructure features into stormwater management system designs,

Canadian municipalities have been slow to adopt these approaches and technologies. Several

potential barriers to the selection, design, and implementation of green infrastructure features

have been identified in literature (CWAA 2011; Olorunkiya et al 2012, Primeau et al 2009; etc.),

and generally include:

Approvals and regulations not suited to implementing new technologies

Minimal incentives for developers, from both lack of information and awareness in

general public and minimal government pressure

Risk associated with long-term maintenance requirements, including defining

responsible parties

Lack of supporting information in design guidelines to aid designers and streamline

approvals;

Construction and design inexperience

Minimal municipal resources available for proper research/promotion of best LID

features

Lack of case studies to demonstrate successful tools.

Through an analysis of the survey results from the 2014 National Consultation Workshop, the

barriers identified were generally consistent with the previous list. More information can be

found in the whitepaper Low Impact Development within Integrated Water Management

Systems: Barriers, Opportunities and Risks (Dalhousie University 2015) (Appendix F). The same

report includes fcase studies about how green infrastructure fits within integrated water

management systems.

8.2.2.2 Case studies about LID implementation

There are many opportunities green infrastructure features on a smaller scale in both retrofit

and renewal projects. Retrofitting systems to incorporate green infrastructure features can

allow for improvements to stormwater quality and reductions in stormwater runoff quantity.

This can reduce risks in integrated water management systems.

Appendix M summarizes several examples of smaller green infrastructure implementation

projects across Canada and North America, including the approaches, lessons, and

considerations for risk. In these cases, green infrastructure features are implemented to

supplement existing conventional drainage networks and systems.

Notable online resources with additional case study information include:

Stormwater Case Studies website (US EPA 2014b)

Innovative Stormwater Management Practices website (Online database of LID practices

in Ontario, TRCA 2014)

Information about feature sizing is becoming more available through documents published by

government agencies in both Canada and the United States (CVC & TRCA 2010; City of

Edmonton 2011). As practitioners further develop their experience with particular features, they

are publishing comprehensive guides (e.g., bioretention features, WI DNR 2014). With this

experience come additional examples of typical green infrastructure design drawings and

specifications (City of Portland 2008).

Effective green infrastructure implementation takes into account site-specific conditions and

considerations. As such, it is difficult to recommend one solution for all design scenarios.

Lessons and knowledge shared through additional case studies will lend to the collective growth

in the field.

8.3 Recommendations A more consistent Canada wide approach to promoting alternative stormwater management

approaches would encourage more effective discussion, collaboration, and implementation of

green infrastructure technologies. Additional demonstration projects focused on mitigating

concerns related to long-term maintenance, the effects of road salt and de-icing chemicals on

features and effects of green infrastructure on infiltration and inflows to sanitary systems will

help in mitigating uncertainties. As the knowledge base grows, practitioners should continue to

develop design support information, and make efforts to promote these features within the

previously existing municipal stormwater guidelines.

This section is a summary of research carried in collaboration with Credit Valley Conservation

Authority and Dalhousie University. For more information visit Appendix G and H.

Integrated Financial Planning 9

Integrated financial planning is the last tool within the one water framework. With an asset

management plan prepared for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, municipalities can

develop a long-term capital budget to tackle future replacement needs and an operating budget to deal

with critical maintenance that will help ensure infrastructure achieves or exceeds the anticipated useful

life and level of service. With an integrated financial plan, municipalities can combine the physical

inventories of the infrastructure into one database to forecast when the assets will reach the end of

their service life. At that stage, municipalities can prepare cost estimates to replace the infrastructure or

apply new technologies to optimize infrastructure, thus delaying the need for full replacement and

deferring cost.

A detailed life-cycle cost analysis can accompany replacement decisions by highlighting the full range of

direct and indirect costs and benefits, as well as support full-cost pricing. This is an important change

that needs to occur to support an integrated risk management approach.

With asset management plans in place, small, medium, and large municipalities can optimize decision

making and reduce environmental, social, and economic risks. Using a sound financial model,

municipalities can tackle the infrastructure deficit to implement the recommendations of the asset

management plan. Municipalities will have a long-term capital budget to tackle future replacement

needs and an operating budget to deal with critical maintenance.

Figure 23 illustrates how the full cost and benefits of infrastructure solutions including externalities

could be considered when comparing grey and green retrofit solutions for a municipal road retrofit.


Governance


Assessment

Innovative Green

Infrastructure

Technology

Integrated

Financial

Planning

One Water

Framework

Figure 23: Comparison of road retrofit alternatives for a local residential road. Source: CVC

This chapter will highlight current approaches, tools, and strategies along with potential barriers to

integrated financial planning. This includes approaches and methods on how to develop an integrated

long-term capital budget and operating budget forecast which implements the asset management

plan/strategy, considering the overall impact on service levels and rate payers.

9.1 Legislation that supports integrated financial planning Since the Walkerton Inquiry, Ontario has adopted several pieces of legislation in an effort to support

full-cost pricing, including the goal of implementing long-term asset management principles. The

following proposed and interim legislation attempts to better define financial plans:

Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act (SWSSA) - enacted but no Regulations, subsequently

repealed

O.Reg. 453/07- under Safe Drinking Water Act

Water Opportunities Act - enacted but no Regulations

Public Sector Accounting Board Reporting (PSAB)

9.1.1 Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act

Many people considered the Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act (SWSSA), passed in 2002, a

good starting point for legislation. The intent of the Act was to introduce municipalities to undertaking a

full-cost pricing assessment of water and wastewater services as a means of reducing the risk of

increasing infrastructure deficit. However the act was repealed in December 2012.

The definition of full-cost pricing for drinking water was defined as “source protection, operating costs,

financing costs, renewal and replacement costs and improvement costs associated with extracting,

treating or distributing water to the public and such other costs which may be specified by regulation”

(SWSSA 2002). A similar definition was also created for wastewater systems that carried that same

meaning.

Under SWSSA, two reports were required:

Full Cost Service Report: The full cost service report required an inventory of all the physical

infrastructure including an infrastructure management plan and identification of costs of providing the

service(s). This supported an integrated approach by requiring municipalities to identify all of the costs

associated with delivering the service. Municipalities would eventually need to look at the cost of

renewing and updating infrastructure, and optimizing infrastructure through the use of new

technologies among other things.

The National Consultation Workshop revealed that many stakeholders believed SWSSA was a step in the

right direction. They felt that if regulations were developed they would have supported the

development of more complete and integrated financial plans.

Cost Recovery Plan Report: The second report would have outlined how the municipality intended to

pay for the full costs of providing the service. This would include the capital costs, operating costs,

future growth and the costs of utilizing new technologies to achieve the required level of service.

The preparation of these reports would have required the different municipal departments (i.e.

engineering, finance, etc.) to collaborate thus ensuring good integration. Although this legislation was

enacted, no regulations were ever created to fully implement it.

9.1.2 Ontario Regulation 453/07 (O. Reg 453/07)

In 2007, O.Reg 453/07 was passed by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, requiring the

preparation of financial plans for water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This was intended as

an interim legislation so that municipalities could be licensed to run the water system until regulations

for SWSSA came into effect.

The regulation only pertained to drinking water and didn’t include wastewater and stormwater. These

regulations only required municipalities to report on a financial statement basis with annual projections

and did not embrace a forward looking approach. Financial statements typically take an accounting

approach and follow a Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) reporting format.

O.Reg 453/7 was not as comprehensive as SWSSA because it didn’t look at look at assets, new

technologies, growth, impacts on rates, etc. Furthermore, the regulations only required a financial

statement which tends to look backwards and not forward.

9.1.3 Public Sector Accounting Board Reporting

In 2009, municipalities began to move towards the

Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) reporting.

Municipalities started to integrate financial

information such as the value of the assets,

amortization, and depreciation to show the full

financial picture. This ensured that municipalities

developed more detailed records of their

infrastructure assets. However, it recorded costs at a

historic value. For example, the cost to build water

mains 40 years ago is probably 10% of the cost of

building them today. Once infrastructure reaches its

useful life, the financial books do not accurately reflect

the true replacement cost. It is very important that

municipalities consider the true cost of replacing the

infrastructure assets.

Figure 24 illustrates the different financial approaches

currently in use across Ontario. PSAB and O.Reg

453/07 support the preparation of financial

statements that use a backward-looking approach.

SWSSA, on the other hand, would have required

municipalities to look at the replacement of the future

value of the asset.

Figure 24: Comparison of different financial approaches. Source: XX

9.1.4 Water Opportunities Act

In 2010, the government passed the Water Opportunities Act. The act was introduced to foster

innovative water, wastewater, and stormwater technologies, services, and practices. This act also has

PAST EXPENDITURES FUTURE EXPENDITURES

Municipal

Assets

PSAB - roads Asset Management

- water SWSSA

- wastewater Financial Plan

- stormwater

- recreation

- public works

- library

- etc

O. Reg. 453/07

Life-cycle costing

Life-cycle costs are all of the costs

incurred during the life cycle of a

physical asset, from the time of its

acquisition to disposal. These are the

stages of an asset’s life cycle:

specification, design, manufacture,

installation, commission, operation,

maintenance and disposal.

The life-cycle approach assesses the

amount needed in reserves to save for

the replacement, assuming inflation

and investment rates. If municipalities

are going to perform a life-cycle cost

analysis to compare for example, grey

and green infrastructure solutions,

they will need life-cycle costing

information. This information is

readily available for grey

infrastructure but not always for new

and emerging green infrastructure

technologies.

provisions for the preparation of integrated financial plans. This is a forward-looking approach to

improve the overall provision of services, embracement of new technologies, better environmental

protection, and assessment of risks that could impact future delivery of services (i.e. climate change).

The key drivers impacting today’s municipalities (aging infrastructure, climate change, and population

growth) must be factored into asset management plans so the financial plan can reflect the costs of

dealing with the associated risks.

9.2 Elements of a Financial Plan The 2012 CIRC indicates that of the 346 surveyed municipalities, only 4.5% use complete and reliable

assessment data when evaluating stormwater system capacity. Many municipalities use age-based

assumptions of condition when assessing the current state of infrastructure assets which presents a

significant amount of risk (see Appendix A).

Without an understanding of the physical condition of stormwater infrastructure, it is difficult to

prepare a comprehensive financial plan that is also integrated with other water infrastructures. Figure

25 illustrates the typical elements of a financial plan for drinking water infrastructure. The process looks

similar for wastewater infrastructure.

Two additional boxes (light blue) highlight how financial plans also need to include a risk assessment and

consideration of how new technologies can optimize infrastructure performance. Through a life-cycle

cost analysis, municipalities could compare different infrastructure options and technologies to

understand how to deliver service at the lowest life-cycle cost in order to understand the influence

decisions have on both capital and operating budgets. Water and wastewater typically require a 10

years cycle of budgets, while many small municipalities complete a one-year budget. Integrated lifecycle

costing is necessary to ensure that all assets have a comprehensive financial plan.

Figure 25: Typical components of a financial plan with additional considerations to enhance integration. Source:

Adapted from a chart provided by Gary Scanlan.

9.2.1 Financing options

Stormwater funding mechanisms are currently in use across Canada and are important for securing a

dedicated funding source for municipalities to achieve the required level of service for stormwater

management.

Table 3 outlines the different funding mechanisms in use across Canada for funding stormwater

infrastructure.

Table 3: A summary of the different types of charge structures for stormwater management infrastructure. Source: Watson & Associates.

Type of

Charge

Basis for

Calculation

Ease of

Calculation

Equity Administratio

n

Public

Understanding

Revenue

Stability

Revenue

Stability

Benefit

Economic

Development

Benefit

Other comments

Property Taxes Assessment Easy Low Easy Easy High Medium Tax bill

Flat Rate per

Property Per lot Easy Low Easy Easy High High Tax or rate bill

May be varied between

residential and non-

residential to reflect

differences

Size of

Property

Area of

Property Medium Medium Easy Easy High Medium Tax or rate bill

Often gaps in Assessment

Data – need to supplement

with GIS or site visit

Utility Rate Water Meter

Readings Easy Medium Easy Medium High Medium Rate bill

Run-Off

Coefficient

Area and Use

of Property Difficult High Medium Difficult High Low Tax or rate bill

Impervious

Area of All

Properties

Measured

Impervious

Area

Difficult High High level of

maintenance Difficult High Low Tax or rate bill

Need to monitor building

permits and update data –

need detailed review every

few years

Funding for asset management plans can come from a variety of sources. The Federation of

Canadian Municipalities outlines a variety of different options for finding funds to finance

infrastructure renewal, including:

Property tax

Income tax

Retail sales tax

Land transfer tax

Fuel tax

Development charges

Parking fees

Hotel and accommodation fees

Municipal financing authorities (CUPE 2014)

9.3 Potential barriers to integrated financial plans

Governance

Service easements for water, sanitary, and stormwater system within roads can cause

challenges in integrating services between upper and lower-tier municipalities. Integrated

financial plans would improve coordination between upper and lower-tier municipalities in

terms of timing of construction (i.e. when services need to be repaired or replaced). Lack of

funding adds to the complexity of challenges in terms of affordability for service.

Appendix I highlights examples of how water services are handled across different

jurisdictions. For example, water could be split between treatment and distribution similar to

Region of Waterloo and City of Waterloo. Lower-tier municipalities tend to work independently

on storm drainage projects.

Legislation

In Ontario, there is legislation for water and some emphasis on wastewater. However, there is

very little legislation for stormwater. Usually legislation is focused on target and performance

but does not have any direct requirement for asset management or financial matters. It is also

focused on individual service and there is no legislation enforcing integrated financial planning.

Cost and affordability

Incorporating new technologies, building infrastructure resiliency, and increasing service

performance requires additional budget. Newer technology may influence legislation, but

implementation could be costly. Municipalities have invested a lot of money in water and

wastewater. In communities with older infrastructure, the cost of replacement is very high. This

makes adding newer technology challenging, especially when municipalities consider population

growth, climate change, and aging infrastructure.

Other matters to consider include historic approaches that tend to be generic and not specific to

areas and regions. Municipalities need to consider climate, population, and economic variation

between different regions.

Eventually, integrated planning could become a requirement for provincial infrastructure

funding. For example, the Water Opportunities Act (regulations pending) could require

municipalities to prepare a sustainability plan in order to get access to provincial funding.

Green Infrastructure Lifecycle Costs

Information about infrastructure lifecycle costs is needed to support the preparation of

integrated financial plans. To support life-cycle costing methods for comparing solutions (i.e.

grey versus green infrastructure), it is important that practitioners have access to life-cycle

costing data to make informed decisions. Monitoring demonstration projects such as one water

projects and collecting data on performance, operation and maintenance costs will support

decisions at both the municipal and provincial level. Decisions that can be made with fewer

assumptions reduce risk and uncertainty and make the life-cycle costing approaches easier to

apply to non-traditional infrastructure projects (i.e. green infrastructure).

9.4 Recommendations

Figure 26 highlights the different things to consider when preparing an integrated financial plan.

In general, financial plans should reflect an understanding of how infrastructure optimization

can be performed between the three infrastructure systems. For example, how can improved

stormwater management impact downstream assimilative capacity for a wastewater treatment

facility? Is it more cost effective to retrofit existing urban areas with green infrastructure or

upgrade the WWTP facility to achieve stricter targets? In general, integrated financial plans

should consider:

The costs associated with dealing with risks that may interfere with current and future

delivery of municipal water services, including climate change;

Cost efficiencies and added value that can be achieved through collaborative planning

within and between municipalities;

Take into account cost comparisons (based on the entire life cycle) for conventional and

innovative infrastructures, technologies and practices that promote efficient water use

and reduce adverse impacts on water resources (e.g. green infrastructure, LID);

Reflect the cost to properly integrate provincial and municipal plans and policies, land

use planning and infrastructure planning;

Costs needed to building capacity and resiliency in water, stormwater and wastewater

management.

The social/economic and environmental return on investment (ROI) is a term that is not often

reflected in financial plans and statements and provides a indication of how effective an

organization uses its capital and other resources to create value for the community. The

challenging part to calculating the ROI, is quantifying the financial benefits for public health, the

economy and the environment.

Making the paradigm shift to a “one water approach” would require developing a financial plan

that can answer questions such as:

What are the “deferred or avoided capital expenditures” of taking a green infrastructure

approach over a gray infrastructure approach? What are the savings in operation and

maintenance costs?

How can innovative water management approaches “extend the lifespan of existing

conventional infrastructure”?

The ROI can help develop integrated financial plans that demonstrate an understanding of the

full cost and benefits of infrastructure, including externalities. For example,

How applying the “right water for right use “can reduce water treatment costs;

How the recovery of valuable resources (reclaimed water, nutrients, carbon, metals and

biosolids) from “wastewater” can offset potable water costs, fertilizers, and generating

power;

The value of harvesting stormwater for water supply, irrigation, and/or infiltration

benefits;

Demonstrating how multiple decentralized small water treatment and distribution

systems combining local needs and the triple bottom line;

How new infrastructure design technologies and strategies to address today’s complex

water problems.

Integrated financial plans are also an excellent to help justify budgets/investment, better focus

on priorities and understand the risks/consequences of alternative investment decision.

Recommendations and Conclusions 10

When considering the full range of key drivers, associated risk and examining the various risk

management practices being applied to management of municipal water systems, it becomes

apparent that an integrated water management framework for municipalities is necessary to

address these complex and interconnected risks. The One Water approach allow municipalities,

water managers and regulators to better coordinate the development and management of

water, land, and related resources in a sustainable and equitable manner and better coordinate

decisions and investments for the most effective results.

This document examines a proposed integrated framework through the lens of three main

drivers of risk: aging infrastructure, climate change, and a growing population. The project team

found that municipalities are beginning to understand and respond to these drivers and that

integrated approaches, while slow to be adopted in Canada, are on the rise.

This chapter summarizes the components of the One Water framework, and provides the next

steps government, conservation authorities, and academia need to consider to integrate the

One Water approach.

10.1 Legislation and governance

There is substantial legislation and governance structure that provides barrier for municipalities

to adapt an integrated approach to risk management. Among many steps that stakeholders can

take towards an integrated approach, the proposed structure with the highest potential should

include a ‘networked governance structure’ where all those with decision-making authority are

involved in making informed decisions on a scale appropriate to the dynamic, transboundary

nature of water. One such example proposed in this phase of the research includes a

Conservation Authority (watershed planner/ district) model, as it exists in Ontario, operating at

a watershed scale.

Next Steps:

An initial step is for the Federal government to coordinate interprovincial integration of water

management by reviving the 1987 Federal Water Policy. At a provincial level, significant

infrastructure in the form of policy frameworks already exist and are the building blocks that can

be evolved into coordinating and integrating framework across provinces. Within provinces, to

address overlapping legislation and conflicting departmental mandates requires clear statement

of priorities within the legislation itself.

10.2 Integrated Watershed Planning

Integrated Watershed Management is managing human activities and natural resources in an

area defined by watershed boundaries aiming to protect and manage all natural resources and

their functions today and into the future. Integrated water management, also termed ‘one

water’, is an approach imbedded in the practice of integrated watershed management that

plans, manages, protects and conserves the urban and rural water cycle within the context of

watershed boundaries. Today’s water management issues need to be addressed through a

more integrated and holistic approach starting at the watershed scale.

10.3 Asset management

There is a wide range of practices currently being carried out by municipalities. Some key tools

that offer the strongest potential for allowing for a more comprehensive consideration of risk

include:

Data sharing options;

Improved asset management software;

Assembly of information using software/tablets;

Directed focus on information on the internet;

Collaborations and partnerships.

Next Steps:

The importance of keeping floodplain maps up to date;

Improved methods of understanding the changing integrity of buried, linear assets;

Access to regional and local climate information, and strategies for proactively

managing floodplains and flood protection, including strengthening communication

between upstream/downstream communities;

Implementing and maintaining asset management programs;

Updating Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves including adjustments to reflect

projected climate change conditions;

Initiate pilot projects to demonstrate how upper and lower tier municipalities could

integrate their asset management plans for water, wastewater and stormwater

infrastructure;

Development of a “Green Infrastructure Asset Management Planning” guide to help fill

this gap;

10.4 Integrated risk assessments

The Water Utility Risk Integration Matrix highlights the key drivers, methodologies, and

approaches to manage risks relevant to Canadian water infrastructure. The complexity of risks

and drivers is expected to impact the municipality’s ability to meet the required levels of service

for stormwater, wastewater and water services. Municipalities need to understand the

vulnerability of infrastructure to climate change, population growth aging infrastructure, and

the array of additional drivers that impact the ability to manage the risks. Identifying the

components of infrastructure within a system that are highly vulnerable to these drivers enables

municipalities to develop cost –effective engineering, operations and policy solutions. In order

to ensure sustainable future delivery of municipal water services, municipalities need to

participate in risk assessment methodologies at a watershed scale, to understand integration of

the different infrastructure systems. Based on the tools explored in Chapter 5, the PIEVC

protocol holds the most potential for an integrated risk assessment of all three water systems.

Next Steps:

Develop a case study that highlights upper tier-lower tier collaboration to understand

infrastructure vulnerabilities to climate change at a watershed scale. This case study should look

at both grey and green infrastructure solutions. Step 4 of PIEVC Protocol- “Engineering Analysis”

provides the opportunity to incorporate a more detailed analysis, and should be considered for

further analysis of the interaction of the three municipal water systems.

10.5 Integrated financial planning

Preparation of integrated asset management plans is a critical step towards developing a long

term capital budget to address future replacement needs and to ensure an operating budget

able to deal with ongoing maintenance issues. Financial plans would incorporate findings from

integrated risk assessments and the application of new technologies to optimize infrastructure,

thus identifying opportunities to delay full replacement and deferring cost, where appropriate

and feasible.

A detailed lifecycle cost analysis would accompany replacement decisions, highlighting the full

range of direct and indirect costs and benefits and support full cost pricing. With asset

management plans in place, small, medium and large municipalities are able to optimize

decision-making. Municipalities are better able to address infrastructure deficits, based on a

sound financial plan to implement the recommendations of the asset management plan.

In order to develop integrated and holistic financial plans, municipalities should perform the

lifecycle cost analysis method when evaluating infrastructure solutions (e.g. grey vs green

infrastructure). The lifecycle analysis will require looking towards the future when preparing a

financial plan.

Next Steps:

There is a need for green infrastructure life cycle costing information in order to

perform a Lifecycle Costing analysis;

Performance assessment data can be used to evaluate how different options achieve

defined levels of service through performance indicators and targets;

Develop case studies that quantify, for example, the ability of different green

infrastructure treatment trains to meet or exceed specific performance objectives, level

of service requirements and secondary benefits;

Support decisions regarding green infrastructure investment and long term

maintenance and operation (i.e. requiring fewer assumptions, thereby reducing doubt,

uncertainty and risk);

Transferability- Gather data which is needed to simulate watershed responses to

widespread implementation of integrated infrastructure solutions;

Financial plans need to reflect how infrastructure optimization can be performed

between the three infrastructure systems;

Develop case studies to highlight how lower and upper tier municipalities can develop

an integrated financial plan that assesses the full cost recovery for meeting the required

level of service for the three systems together.

10.6 Innovative green infrastructure technologies

Green infrastructure is the stormwater management practice with the strongest potential to

allow for a more integrated consideration of risk and a tool to support more holistic approaches

to municipal water management. To realize implementation of green infrastructure across

Canada, more effort must be put into technical assessment, understanding of construction costs

and O&M costs, including establishing responsibility for these costs, performance monitoring

and knowledge transfer and translation. As well, development of new stormwater regulations

and policies, continued development of updated design guidance and support documents,

incentivizing lot-level green infrastructure adoption, and promoting green infrastructure synergy

within different levels and departments of government will assist in promoting the adoption of

green infrastructure approaches and features.

Next Steps:

Technical assessment of LID through planning and design of demonstration projects

Construction of LID projects to ensure proper construction and inspection prior to

assumption;

Performance assessment of LID projects to understand performance in different

geographic regions;

Knowledge transfer and translation through the development of guides, factsheets, case

studies and sharing lessons learned to promote wide scale adoption;

Incentive strategies;

Increased government synergy;

Implementation of pollution prevention practices in combination;

Implement demonstration projects that can be the source of long-term performance

data that can be used to develop tools like guidance documents or models to effectively

plan, design and manage infrastructure to reduce risk;

Track long term maintenance and operation costs to support infrastructure investment

decisions;

Gather data required to simulate watershed responses to widespread implementation

of integrated infrastructure solutions and build a robust dataset for long-term

assessment. Municipalities can use this information to develop rebates on development

charges and credits on municipal stormwater rates. This helps strengthen the business

case for implementing new and innovative technologies if there are potential savings to

the end user.

Quantify the ability of different green infrastructure treatment trains to meet or exceed

direct benefits, including meeting specific performance objectives, level of service

requirements and secondary benefits.

Concluding statement

Integrated water management has been described as a concept that is easy to talk about but

difficult to implement. Municipalities across Canada are struggling to address a myriad of issues

from aging infrastructure to insufficient funding and required to do more with less and at the

same time use its capital and resources to create value for the community. The term “infra-

stretch” says it all!

To prevent the further degradation of surface waters and damage to property and infrastructure

from erosion, flooding and impaired water quality, multi-functional infrastructure solutions that

embrace the “one water” approach are more important than ever. As described in earlier

chapters of this report, municipalities, watershed managers and water utilities need to embrace

changes or shifts that will yield integrated cost-effective solutions to address the environmental,

social and economic issues facing today’s generation of water management practitioners.

These changes need to be at the top of mind so that today’s standard practices pertaining to

infrastructure upgrades and improvements can change. Many opportunities currently exist for

the implementation of novel water management infrastructure approaches that can be

supported by a broad range of stakeholders using a science based approach towards creating

more sustainable communities across Canada.

References 11

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Positive Effects of Small Dams and Reservoirs. Retrieved

from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1351881784186

Ahiablame, L., Engel, B., Chaubey, I., 2012. Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices:

Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

Volume 223, Issue 7, pp 4253-4273.

Ahn, J., Lee, S., Lee, G., Koo, J., 2005. Predicting water pipe breaks using neural network. Water

Science and Technology: Water Supply 5, 159–172.

Akan, O., Houghtalen, R., 2003. Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Stormwater Quality:

Engineering Applications and Computer Modeling. Wiley publishing, ISBN 978-0-471-43158-9.

Alberta Water Council, “About Us”, online: Alberta Water Council

<http://www.albertawatercouncil.ca/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx>. Stakeholder groups

including: the Provincial Water Advisory Council; Watershed Panning and Advisory Councils;

and Watershed Stewardship Groups. See Carey Hill, et al, Harmonization Versus Subsidiarity in

Water Governance: A Review of Water Governance and Legislation in the Canadian Provinces

and Territories (23 Jan 2013), Canadian Water Resources Journal at p. 324.

Alexander, L. V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T. C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Haylock,

M., Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour, A., Rupa Kumar, K., Revadekar, J.,

Griffiths, G., Vincent, L., Stephenson, D. B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New,

M., Zhai, P., Rusticucci, M., and Vazquez-Aguirre, J. L. 2006 Global observed changes in daily

climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geo- physical Research:

Atmospheres 111, 22.

Allen, A. S. 2013. Vulnerability of a Fractured Bedrock Aquifer to Emerging Sewage-Derived

Contaminants and their use as Indicators of Virus Contamination. Retrieved from:

https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/7581/Allen_Amy_201310_Msc

.pdf?sequence=1/

Ambrose, M., Burn, S., DeSilva, D. & Rahilly, M. 2010. Life Cycle Analysis of Water Networks.

Retrieved from: http://www.pepipe.org/uploads/pdfs/Life_Cycle_Cost_Study.pdf

AMEC, 2012. Development of Projected Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Welland,

Ontario, Canada. Technical Report. Retrieved from: http://www.welland.ca/eng/pdfs/appc-

wellandreportfinal.pdf

American Rivers, The Water Environment Federation, The American Society of Landscape

Architects and ECONorthwest, 2012. Banking on Green. Retrieved from

http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/B

anking%20on%20Green%20HighRes.pdf

Asnaashari, A., McBean, E.A., Gharabaghi, B., Tutt, D., 2013. Forecasting watermain failure using

artificial neural network modeling. Canadian Water Resources Journal 38, 24–33.

AWWA (American Water Works Association), 2012. Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s

Water Infrastructure Challenge. Report. American Water Works Association.

AWWA (American Water Works Association), 2014. AWWA State of the Water Industry Report.

Retrieved from http://aspe.org/sites/default/files/webfm/pdfs/AWWASotWIReport2014.pdf

Baah, K., Dubey, B., Harvey, R., and McBean, E., 2015. “A Risk-Based Approach to Sanitary Sewer

Pipe Asset Management”, Science of the Total Environment, 505(1), pp. 1011-1017.

Babovic, V. and Drecourt, J., 2000. Data Mining Approach to pipe burst risk assessment. Proc.,

Water Network Modeling for Optimal Design and Management, CWS, Exeter, U.K.

BBC. 2014. Zebra Mussels a ‘threat to the water system’. Retrieved from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28970957

BCWWA, “About BC Waste & Wastewater Association”, online: BCWWA <

http://www.bcwwa.org/about-2/about-bcwwa.html>.

Beacom, C. 2006, March 6. Yukon's Dawson City treading on thin ice. The Globe and Mail.

Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/yukons-dawson-city-

treading-on-thin-ice/article704342/

Bernhardt, E., Palmer, M., 2007. Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Journal of Freshwater

Biology. 2007 (52). 738-751. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x

Bishop, P., Misstear, B., White, M., Harding, N., 1998. Impacts of sewers on groundwater quality.

Journal of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management 12, 216–223.

Building better communities: A fair funding toolkit for Canada’s cities and towns. Cupe 2014.

CA (Canadian Infrastructure), 2012. Canadian Infrastructure Report Card – Volume 1: 2012

Municipal Roads and Water Systems. Retrieved from

http://www.canadainfrastructure.ca/downloads/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_Card_EN.p

df

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2009. “Canada-wide Strategy for the

Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent”. Retrieved from:

http://www.usatrenchless.com/wp-content/uploads/cda_wide_strategy_mwwe_final_e.pdf

Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment, “About”, online: Canadian Council of the

Ministers of the Environment <http://www.ccme.ca/en/about/index.html>.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, (SC 1999, c 33, s 3(1)).Retrieved from Justice Laws

Website:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.31/FullText.html

Canadian Infrastructure Report Card - Asset Management Primer, 2014. The Canadian

Infrastructure Report Card project. Retrieved from:

http://canadainfrastructure.ca/downloads/circ_asset_management_primer_EN.pdf

Canadian Water Network. 2013. “Development of Integrated Risk Management Framework for

Municipal Water Systems”. Retrieved from: http://www.cwn-rce.ca/project-

library/project/development-of-integrated-risk-management-framework-for-municipal-water-

systems?u=keyword%3Dmcbean%26item%3D60

Carey Hill, et al, Harmonization Versus Subsidiarity in Water Governance: A Review of Water

Governance and Legislation in the Canadian Provinces and Territories (23 Jan 2013), Canadian

Water Resources Journal at p. 316, 320, 323, 325.

CATT, The 2013 Municipal Buried Infrastructure Survey - an overview of Canada’s water,

wastewater and stormwater sectors. 2014, Center for Advancement of Trenchless

Technologies: http://cattevents.ca/pdf/2013_CATT_Municipal_Survey.pdf.

CBC News, 2010. City water to flow to Beaver Bank homes. Retrieved from

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/city-water-to-flow-to-beaver-bank-homes-

1.903333

CBC News, 2010b. Halifax developers to test for water first. Retrieved from

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-developers-to-test-for-water-first-

1.903331

CCAP (The Centre for Clear Air Policy), 2011, The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban

Climate Adaption. Retrieved from http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-

Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf

Center for Disease Control. 2013. Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Corrosion of Pipes in

Distribution Systems Fact Sheet. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/corrosion.htm

Centre for Water Resources Studies, 2014. Groundwater Modeling Assessment for the Low

Impact Development Stormwater Management Project in Seven Lakes, Porters Lake, NS.

Prepared for the Ecology Action Centre.

CIRC.. Canadian infrastructure report card - municipal roads and water systems. 2012. Canadian

Infrastructure Report Card: www. canadianinfrastructure.ca. p. 1-67.

City of Calgary, 2011. Stormwater Management & Design Manual. Department of Water

Resources. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Urban-Development/Urban-

Development-publications.aspx

http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf

http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/corrosion.htm

City of Calgary. 2015. History of Calgary wastewater treatment. Retrieved from:

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Water-and-wastewater-systems/Wastewater-

system/A-History-of-Wastewater-Treatment.aspx

City of Edmonton, 2011. Low Impact Development - Best Management Practices Design Guide

Edition 1.0. Retrieved from

http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/documents/PDF/LIDGuide.pdf

City of Edmonton, 2014. Stormwater Utility FAQ for Residential Customers. Retrieved from

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/utilities/stormwater-utility-faq-residential.aspx

City of Guelph, 2011. Rainwater Harvesting System Rebate Program. Retrieved from

http://guelph.ca/living/environment/rebates/rainwater-harvesting-system-rebate/

City of Kitchener & Waterloo, 2010. Kitchener/Waterloo Stormwater Utility based on Impervious

Area: A tale of Two Cities. Retrieved from http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/3DDMcGoldrickNGollan-Kitchener-WaterlooStor.pdf

City of Ottawa. 2011. Sewer Use Program: Guide for Discharging Wastewater from Industrial

Facilities. Retrieved from:

https://www.nchca.ca/resources/content/Sewer_Use_program_-_english_-

_01_May_2011.pdf

City of Ottawa. 2015. Combined Sewer Overflows. Retrieved from:

http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/sewers-and-septic-

systems/combined-sewer-overflows

City of Portland, 2014. Appendix G. Retrieved from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/47963

City of Seattle, 2010. Seattle’s Natural Drainage Systems. Retrieved from

http://www.seattle.gov/util/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu02_019

984.pdf

City of Waterloo. 2005. Master Drainage Study, Urbanized Subwatershed. Retrieved from:

http://www.waterloo.ca/en/contentresources/resources/government/Master_Drainage_Stud

y_Part_1.pdf

CNT, 2013. The Case for Fixing the Leaks - Protecting people and saving water while supporting

economic growth in the Great Lakes region. Report. Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Columbia Basin Trust. 2011. Climate Change in the Canadian Columbia Basin. Retrieved from:

https://www.cbt.org/uploads/pdf/Climate_Change_in_the_Canadian_Columbia_Basin_-

_Starting_the_Dialogue.pdf

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. 1988. Other Effects of Climate

Change. In: Greenhouse: Planning for climate change. East Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO,

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/3DDMcGoldrickNGollan-Kitchener-WaterlooStor.pdf

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/3DDMcGoldrickNGollan-Kitchener-WaterlooStor.pdf

https://www.nchca.ca/resources/content/Sewer_Use_program_-_english_-_01_May_2011.pdf

https://www.nchca.ca/resources/content/Sewer_Use_program_-_english_-_01_May_2011.pdf

Retrieved from: https://

books.google.cabooks?id=ca6uOGYQsHcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&

cad=0#v=onepa ge&q &f=false

Constitution Act, (1867, (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5, 91,92, 92(A),

95). Retrieved from The Canadian Legal Information Institute:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/30---31-vict-c-3/latest/30---31-vict-c-3.html

Cook, C.L. 2011. Putting the Pieces Together: Tracing Jurisdictional Fragmentation in Ontario

Water Governance.

Council of Canadian Academies. 2013. Water and Agriculture in Canada: Towards Sustainable

Management of Water Resources. Retrieved from:

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20n

ews%20releases/water_agri/wag_fullreporten.pdf

Craig, Robin Kundis, “Climate Change, Regulatory Fragmentation, and Water Triage”, (2008)

79(3) University of Colorado Law Review, 825-928.

CRD (Capital Regional District), 2014. Bioswales. Retrieved from

https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/low-impact-development/bioswales

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation) & TRCA (Toronto and Region Conservation), 2010. Low Impact

Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Version 1.0, retrieved

from http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-

support/stormwater-management-lid-guidance-documents/low-impact-development-

stormwater-management-planning-and-design-guide/

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation), 2008. Credit River Water Management Strategy Update –

Municipal Stormwater Financing Study. Internal Working Document – FINAL. Retrieved from

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SWMratesReport2008.pdf

CWAA (Clean Water America Alliance), 2011. Barriers and Gateways to Green Infrastructure.

Retrieved from http://www.uswateralliance.org/news-media/alliance-publications/barriers-

and-gateways-to-green-infrastructure/

Dan Sandink, (November 4, 2013).Urban Flood Risk and Insurance. Retrieved online: Credit

Valley Conservation http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2-Dan-

Sandink-Urban-Flood-Risk-and-Insurance.pdf

Davis, C., 2014. Personal communication to Langille, H. “Beaverbank Subdivisions – Halifax

Water”. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

de Loë, Rob, 2008.Toward a Canadian National Water Strategy: Final Report. Canadian Water

Resources Association, pp 3, 7

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/30---31-vict-c-3/latest/30---31-vict-c-3.html

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2-Dan-Sandink-Urban-Flood-Risk-and-Insurance.pdf

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2-Dan-Sandink-Urban-Flood-Risk-and-Insurance.pdf

Department of the Environment Act, (RSC 1985, c E-10). Retrieved from Justice Laws Website:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-10/

Dietz, M., 2007. Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research and

Recommendations for Future Directions. Journal of Water, Air and Soil Pollution. Volume 186,

Issue 1-4, pp 351-363. DOI: 10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z.

District of North Vancouver, 2006. Development Servicing Bylaw No. 7388 – Schedule D.1 -

Design Criteria Manual. Amended by Bylaw 7609, December 4th, 2006.

Drake, J., Guo, Y., 2008. Maintenance of Wet Stormwater Ponds in Ontario. Canadian Water

Resources Journal, Vol. 33(4): 351 – 368.

Duchesne, S., Beardsell, G., Villeneuve, J., Trombou, B., Bouchard, K., 2012. A survival analysis

model for sewer pipe structural deterioration. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure

Engineering 28, 146–160.

Eckstein, Gabriel & Hardberger, Amy, 2008. “State Practice in the Management and Allocation of

Transboundary Groundwater Resources in North America” 18 Yearbook of International

Environmental Law 2007, 96.

ECO (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario), 2014. Sink, Swim, or Tread Water? Adapting

Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events. Excerpt from 2014 Annual Greenhouse Gas

Progress Report. Retrieved from http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-

GHG/2014/GHG2014%20Section%204.pdf

Environment Canada, “Federal Policy and Legislation”, online: Government of Canada

<http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=E05A7F81-1>

Environment Canada, “Provincial/Territorial”, online: Government of Canada

<http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=24C5BD18-1>.

Environment Canada. 2013. Wise Water Use. Water Use. Retrieved from:

https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1

Environmental Bill of Rights, (SO 1993, c 28 s 89(1)). Retrieved from The Canadian Legal

Information Institute:http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1993-c-28/latest/so-1993-c-

28.html

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2014. Sink, Swim or Tread Water? Adapting

Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events. ECO Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report.

Retrieved from:

http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/ReportsGHG/2014/GHG2014%20Section%204.pdf

Erickson, A. J., Weiss, P. T. & Gulliver, J. S. 2013. Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A

Handbook for Assessment and Maintenance. Springer Science Business Media, New York, NY.

http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/ReportsGHG/2014/GHG2014%20Section%204.pdf

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial

Committee on Health and the Environment, “Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

Summary Table”, October 2014

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2003. Water Use and Loss in Water Distribution Systems.

A Best Practice by the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure. Retrieved from:

https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Infraguide/Water_Use_and_Loss_in_the_Water_

Distribution_System_EN.pdf

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2012. “Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, Volume 1:

2012 Municipal Roads and Water Systems”. Retrieved from:

http://www.canadainfrastructure.ca/downloads/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_Card_EN.p

df

Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities. 2014. Excavation Losses. Retrieved from:

http://fonom.org/sites/default/files/May%207%20-%204pm%20OUINS%20Act%20-

%20FONOM%20Conference%20Sault%20Ste%20Marie%20May%207%202014.pdf

Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-

K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events

and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I

and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

Finkenbine, J., Atwater, J., Mavinic, D., 2000. Stream health after urbanization. Journal of

American Water Resources Association. Vol. 36, No. 5. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb05717.x/pdf

Finnis, J. 2012. An Atlas of Climate Change for the Island of Newfoundland – Derived from

Regional Models in the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Project.

Technical Report. Retrieved from:

http://atlanticadaptation.ca/sites/discoveryspace.upei.ca.acasa/files/An%20Atlas%20of%20Cli

mate%20Change%20for%20the%20Island%20of%20Newfoundland_0.pdf

Fisheries Act, RSC (1985, c F-14). Retrieved from Justice Laws Website: http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-14/page-1.html

Flood history: Canada's floods include one caused by hurricane hazel in 1954. The Record. (2013,

June 21). Available from: http://www.therecord.com/news-story/3851576-flood-history-

canada-s-floods-include-one-caused-by-hurricane-hazel-in-1954/

Folkman, S., Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study. 2012,

Utah State University Buried Structures Laboratory:

https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Infraguide/Water_Use_and_Loss_in_the_Water_Distribution_System_EN.pdf

https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Infraguide/Water_Use_and_Loss_in_the_Water_Distribution_System_EN.pdf

http://www.watermainbreakclock.com/docs/UtahStateWaterBreakRates_FINAL_TH_Ver5low

rez.pdf.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1993. Rainfall runoff management

techniques for erosion control and soil moisture conservation. In: FAO Information Division.

Soil tillage in Africa: needs and challenges. Natural Resources Management and Environment

Department. Retrieved from:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1696e/t1696e02.htm#TopOfPage

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. Global Agriculture towards

2050. High-Level Expert Forum. Retrieved from:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_A

griculture.pdf

Fox, P. & Abbaszadegan, M. 2013. Impact of Scale Formation on Biofilm Growth in Premise

Plumbing. Retrieved from: http://www.saltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Fox-

Final-Report-UAZ.pdf

Fraser Basin Council, “4.5 Other Organizations” online: Rethinking Water

<http://www.rethinkingwater.ca/other_organizations.html>.

Halifax Water, 2014. General Information on Utility. Retrieved from

http://www.halifax.ca/hrwc/About%20HRWC/GeneralInfoonUtiliity.php December 2014.

Halifax, 2014. Newcomer’s Guide. Retrieved From http://www.halifax.ca/newcomers/index.php

Hamel, P., Daly, E., Fletcher, T., 2013. Source-Control Stormwater Management for Mitigating

the Impacts of Urbanisation on Baseflow: A Review. Journal of Hydrology 485, pp 201-211.

Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., and Lo, K. Global surface temperature change. Reviews of

Geophysics 48, RG4004 (2010).

Harbor, J. M. 1994. A Practical Method for Estimating the Impact of Land-Use Change on Surface

Runoff, Groundwater Recharge and Wetland Hydrology. Journal of the American Planning

Association. 94, pp. 95-108.

Harvey R., and McBean, E., 2014(d). “Predicting the Structural Condition of Individual Sanitary

Sewer Pipes with Random Forests”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41, pp. 294-303.

Harvey, R., and McBean, E. ‘Understanding Stormwater Pipe Deterioration Through Data

Mining.” Journal of Water Management, pp. 1-8, 2014a.

Harvey, R., and McBean, E., 2014(a), "Predictive and Spatial Analytics for Planning Inspections of

Sewer Infrastructure", International Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 48-

57.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1696e/t1696e02.htm#TopOfPage

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf

Harvey, R., and McBean, E., 2014(b), “Understanding Stormwater Pipe Deterioration Through

Data Mining”, Journal of Water Management, pp. 1-8

Harvey, R., and McBean, E., 2014(c), "Comparing Utility of Decision Trees and Support Vector

Machines when Planning Inspections of Linear Sewers ", Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16.6, pp.

1265-1279.

Harvey, R., McBean, E. and Gharabaghi, B., 2014, “Predicting Watermain Failure Using Neural

Networks”, ASCE – Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Apr 2014, pp. 425-

434

Health Canada. 2005. Links Between Climate, Water and Waterborne Illness, and Projected

Impacts of Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://inweh.unu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2013/06/252333.pdf

HRM (Halifax Regional Municipality), 2010. Council Report - Case 01281 - Monarch

Estates/Rivendale Subdivisions, Beaver Bank: Inclusion in Water Service Area Boundary and

Local Improvement Charge. Retrieved from:

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100302ca92.pdf

HRM (Halifax Regional Municipality), 2013. Case 17463: Open Space Design Development

Agreement – Seven Lakes, Porters Lake.

Hydro Ottawa. 2010. Tree Planting Advice. Retrieved from:

https://static.hydroottawa.com/documents/publications/safety/tree_planting_advice-

EN.pdf

ICF Marbek, 2012. Low Impact Development Discussion Paper. Retrieved from

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2013/01/LID_DISCUSSION_PAPER_NOV_2012.pdf

ICLEI, 2011. Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal

Climate Adaptation. Retrieved from:

http://www.icleicanada.org/images/icleicanada/pdfs/GuideWorkbookInfoAnnexes_Web

siteCombo.pdf

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/rating/

Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), Municipal Risk Assessment Tool (MRAT), Retrieved from:

http://www.ibc.ca/on/disaster/water/municipal-risk-assessment-tool

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, (RSC 1985, c I-17). Retrieved from Justice Laws

Website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-17/

https://static.hydroottawa.com/documents/publications/safety/tree_planting_advice-EN.pdf

https://static.hydroottawa.com/documents/publications/safety/tree_planting_advice-EN.pdf

http://www.icleicanada.org/images/icleicanada/pdfs/GuideWorkbookInfoAnnexes_WebsiteCombo.pdf

http://www.icleicanada.org/images/icleicanada/pdfs/GuideWorkbookInfoAnnexes_WebsiteCombo.pdf

http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/rating/

International Federation of Consulting Engineers. 2015. Retrieved from

http://fidic.org/node/5943

Jafar, R., Shahrour, I., Juran, I., 2010. Application of artificial neural networks (ANN) to model the

failure of urban water mains. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 51, 1170–1180.

Jakob, M. and Lambert, S. 2009. Climate change effects on landslides along the southwest coast

of British Columbia, Geomorphology, 107 (3–4), 275-284.

Jones, P. D., Lister, D. H., Osborn, T. J., Harpham, C., Salmon, M., and Morice, C. P. (2012)

Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision

and an update to 2010. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117, D05127.

Khan, Z., Zayed, T., Moselhi, O., 2010. Structural condition assessment of sewer pipelines.

Journal of the Performance of Constructed Facilities 24, 170–179.

Klein, R., 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resources Bulletin:

American Water Resources Association. 15 (4). Retrieved from

http://www.eahcp.org/files/admin-records/NEPA-docs/Klein%201979.pdf

Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B & Buxton, H.

T. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S.

Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance. Environmental Science Technology. 36(6):

1202-1211.

Konrad, C., Booth, D., 2005. Hydrologic Changes in Urban Streams and Their Ecological

Significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47:157-177.

KPMG, Friedland, J., Cheng, H., and Peleshok, A. 2014. Water Damage Risk and Canadian Property Insurance Pricing. Canadian Institute of Actuaries. http://www.cia-ica.ca/docs/default-source/2014/214020e.pdf

Kunkel, K.E., P.D. Bromirski, H.E. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A.V. Douglas, D.R. Easterling, K.A. Emanuel,

P.Ya. Groisman, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, J.P. Kossin, P.D. Komar, D.H. Levinson, R.L. Smith,

2008: Observed Changes in Weather and Climate Extremes in Weather and Climate Extremes

in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific

Islands. T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.). A

Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change

Research, Washington, DC.

Laforce, S., Simard, M.-C., Leconte, R., and Brissette, F., 2011. Climate change and floodplain

delineation in two southern Quebec river basins. Journal of the American Water Resources

Association, 47(4):785–799.

http://fidic.org/node/5943

Lawrimore, J. H., Menne, M. J., Gleason, B. E., Williams, C. N., Wuertz, D. B., Vose, R. S., and

Rennie, J. (2011) An overview of the global historical climatology network monthly mean

temperature data set, version 3. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 116, D19121.

LSRCA (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority), 2011. Stormwater Pond Maintenance and

Anoxic Conditions Investigation – FINAL REPORT. Retrieved from

http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/reports/stormwater_maintenance.pdf

Lumckert & Zhang, 2012. Impacts of climate change on temperature and evaporation from a

large reservoir in Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 475: 365-378.

Mandelker, Daniel R "Controlling nonpoint source water pollution: Can it be done?",. 1989

Chicago-Kent Law Review 65, 479–502.

Manitoba 2011 Flood Review Task Force Report (2013, April). Minister of Infrastructure and

Transportation, Manitoba. Available from:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/2011flood/flood_review_task_force_report.pdf

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2012. ‘Storm of the Century?’ Try ‘Storm of the Decade’.

Retrieved from: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/storm-of-the-decade-0213

McKinley, V. L. & Vestal, J. R, 1985. Effects of different temperature regimes on microbial

activity and biomass in composting municipal sewage sludge. Canadian Journal of

Microbiology, 31(10): 919-925.

Merrit, James & Gore, Christopher, “The Walkerton Inquiry: Commissioned Paper 5—Drinking

Water Services: A Functional Review of the Ontario Ministry of Environment”, (Toronto:

Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2002), at 32.

Metcalf & Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, Fourth Edn. McGraw Hill

Education, New York, NY.

Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., Walsh, M., 2007. Rapid assessment of the

cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Journal of Landscape and

Urban Planning. Vol. 82, pp 117 – 131.

Morris, Tim, 2014. The Future of Freshwater in Canada: Mobilizing Collective Resources for

Healthy Watersheds. Online: Canadian Environmental Grantmaker’s Network

<http://www.cegn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/waterfunders-low.pdf>.

Municipal Act,(SO 2001, c 25, s 10).Retrieved from The Canadian Legal Information Institute:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2001-c-25/latest/so-2001-c-25.html

National Environmental Services Center. 1999. Infiltration and Inflow Can Be Costly for

Communities. Pipeline. Retrieved from:

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_SP99.pdf

http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/reports/stormwater_maintenance.pdf

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/storm-of-the-decade-0213

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2001-c-25/latest/so-2001-c-25.html

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_SP99.pdf

Navigation Protection Act, (RSC 1985, c N-22). Retrieved from Justice Laws Website: http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-22/

Nunavut Climate Change Center. 2015. Climate Change Impact. Retrieved from:

http://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-

impact

Olorunkiya, J., Fassman, E., Wilkinson, S., 2012. Risk: A Fundamental Barrier to the

Implementation of Low Impact Design Infrastructure for Urban Stormwater Control. Journal of

Sustainable Development; Vol. 5, No. 9, ISSN 1913-9063.

Ontario Ministry of Environment. 2010. Optimization Guidance Manual for Sewage Works.

Retrieved from:http://www.weao.org/assets/docs/resources-links/reports/optimization-

guidance-manual-for-sewage-works.pdf

Ontario Minister of Infrastructure. 2012. Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset

Management Plans. Retrieved from:

http://www.moi.gov.on.ca/pdf/en/Municipal%20Strategy_English_Web.pdf

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. The Impacts of Change on the

Long-Term Future Demand for Water Sector Infrastructure. Offprint of Infrastructure to 2030:

Telecom, Land Transport, Water and Electricity. Retrieved from:

http://www.oecd.org/futures/infrastructureto2030/37182873.pdf

Ouranos, 2008. Climate change in Canada Climate scenarios for the public infrastructure

vulnerability assessment: Metro Vancouver stormwater and wastewater infrastructure case

study. Produced for the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC).

Retrieved from: http://www.pievc.ca/e/casedocs/fraser/Metro%20Vancouver%20-

%20Fraser%20Sewarage_Final%20Report.pdf

Peck, A., Prodanovic, P., Simonovic, S., 2012. Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency Curves Under

Climate Change: City of London, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol

37(3): 177-189.

Peterson, T. C., Zhang, X., Brunet-India, M., and Vázquez-Aguirre, J. L, 2008. Changes in north

american extremes derived from daily weather data. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Atmospheres 113, D07113.

Planning Act,(RSO 1990, c P.13). Retrieved from The Canadian Legal Information Institute:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html

Primeau, S., Bell, M., Riopel, M., Ewaschuk, E., and Doell, D., 2009. Green Communities Guide:

Tools to Help Restore Ecological Processes in Alberta’s Built Environments. Land Stewardship

Centre of Canada. Edmonton, Alberta.

http://www.moi.gov.on.ca/pdf/en/Municipal%20Strategy_English_Web.pdf

Public Water Works. (2012). Public Water Works. The case for prioritizing our most essential

public service. Retrieved from:

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/sites/default/files/resources/public-water- works.pdf

RBC Canadian Water Attitudes Study. 2013. RBC Blue Water Project. Retrieved from:

http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/_assets-custom/pdf/CWAS-2013-

report.pdfSercu, B., Van De Werfhorst, L., Murray, J., Holden, P., 2011. Sewage exfiltration as

a source of storm drain contamination during dry weather in urban watersheds.

Environmental Science and Technology 45, 7151–7157.

Robertson, W., Stanfield, G., “Howard, G. & Baartram, G. 2003. Monitoring the Quality of

Drinking Water During Storage and Distribution”. In World Health Organization Assessing

Microbial Safety of Drinking Water (pp. 179-204). Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Romanovsky, V. E., Gruber, S., Instanes, A., Jin, H., Marchenko, S., S., Smith, S., L., Trombotto, D.

& Walter, K. M. 2007. Frozen Ground. United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved

from: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/PDF/ GEO_C7_LowRes.pdf

Sangster, T., Pipeline Condition Assessment - the Essential Engineering Step in the Asset

Management Process, in Trenchless Technology Conference, 2010: Abu Dhabi.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency), 2014. SEPA – Sustainable Urban Drainage

Systems (SUDS). Retrieved from

http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_regulation/regimes/pollution_control/suds.aspx

December 2014.

Solaiman, T. A & Simonovic, S. P. 2011. Development of Probability Based Intensity-Duration-

Frequency Curves under Climate Change. The University of Western Ontario – Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering. Report No. 072, ISSN 1913-3219.Vol. 5, No. 9. Published

September 1, 2012.

Srivastav, R.K., Schardong, A., Simonovic, S.P., 2014. Computerized Tool for the Development of

Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves under a Changing Climate. Technical Manual v.1.

Retrieved from: http://www.eng.uwo.ca/research/iclr/fids/publications/products/89.pdf

StatCan (Statistics Canada), 2008. Census Snapshot of Canada – Urbanization. Retrieved from

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2007004/10313-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. 2008. Censes Snapshot of Canada – Urbanization. Retrieved from:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2007004/10313-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. 2009. Industrial Water Use. Retrieved from:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-401-x/16-401-x2012001-eng.pdf

http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/_assets-custom/pdf/CWAS-2013-report.pdf

http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/_assets-custom/pdf/CWAS-2013-report.pdf

Steffens, J., T. Wagner, and D. Blackard. Methods for Non-destructive Evaluation of Force Main

Condition and the Associated Cost Benefits - Paper A-6-01. in North American Society for

Trenchless Technology (NASTT) No-Dig Show. 2012. Nahville, TN.

Stephens, D., Miller, M., Moore, S., Umstot, T., Salvato, D., 2012. Decentralized Groundwater

Recharge Systems Using Roofwater and Stormwater Runoff. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(1): 134-144. DOI: 10.1111⁄j.1752-1688.2011.00600.x

Stone, D. A., Weaver, A. J., and Zwiers, F. W, 2000. Trends in canadian precipitation intensity.

Atmosphere-Ocean 38(2): 321–347.

Sustainable Water and Waste Water Systems Act (Bill 13, Subsection 3(7), 2010). Retrieved from

Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2288

Syachrani, S., Jeong, H., Chung, C., 2012. Decision tree based deterioration model for buried

wastewater pipelines. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 27, 633–645.

Teunis, P., Xu, M., Fleming, J., Yang, J., Moe, C., LeChavallier, M., 2010. Enteric virus infection

risk from intrusion of sewage into a drinking water distribution network. Environmental

Science and technology 44, 8561–8566.

The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd. The ISO 55000 Standards. 2014 [cited 2014 November 1];

Available from: http://www. assetmanagementstandards.com/.

Tillinghast, E., Hunt, W., Jennings, G., D’Arconte, P., 2012. Increasing Stream Geomorphic

Stability Using Storm Water Control Measures in a Densely Urbanized Watershed. Journal of

Hydrologic Engineering - American Society of Civil Engineers. 17 (12). DOI:

10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000577

Tran, D., Ng, A., McManus, K., Burns, S., 2008. Prediction models for serviceability deterioration

of stormwater pipes. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 4, 287–295.

TRCA (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority), 2014. Innovative Stormwater Management

Practices. Retrieved from http://www.iswm.ca/.

Turkkan, N., N. El-Jabi and D. Caissie, 2011. Floods and droughts under different climate change

scenarios in New Brunswick. Technical Report. Retrieved from: http://www.dfo-

mpo.gc.ca/Library/343700.pdf

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2013. Causes of Sea Level Rise: What the Science Tells Us. Global

Warming. Retrieved from:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-

level-rise.html#.VKvbFyvF_Lk

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2288

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html#.VKvbFyvF_Lk

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html#.VKvbFyvF_Lk

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency),. 2001. Potential Contamination Due to

Cross-Connections and Backflow and the Associated Health Risks. Retrieved from:

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/issuepaper_tcr_crossconnection-

backflow.pdf

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014. Sanitary Sewer Overflows and

Peak Flows. Pollution Prevention Control. Retrieved from:

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/sso/

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2015. Water Resources. Retrieved

from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/water.html

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2003. EPA’s BEACH Watch Program:

2002 Swimming Season. US EPA Office of water, EPA 832-F-03-007.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. Report to Congress – Impacts

and Control of CSOs and SSOs. Office of Water. EPA 933-R-04-001.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Proposed EPA Policy on Permit

Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges from Wastewater Treatment Plants Serving

Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems. Retrieved from:

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/upload/peak_wet_weather_fs.pdf

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2007, Reducing Stormwater Costs

through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Nonpoint Source Control

Branch. EPA 841-F-07-006.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. National Water Quality

Inventory: Report to Congress – 2004 Reporting Cycle. Office of Water. EPA 841-R-08-001.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2010. Source Water Protection

Practices Bulletin – Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking

Water. Office of Water.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Agricultural Nonpoint Source

Fact Sheet. Water: Polluted Runoff. Retrieved from:

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture_facts.cfm

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Benefits of Low Impact

Development – How LID Can Protect Your Community’s Resources. Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds. EPA 841-N-12-003A.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Managing Urban Runoff.

Retrieved from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/point7.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/upload/peak_wet_weather_fs.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture_facts.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/point7.cfm

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014. Climate Impacts on Ecosystems.

Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-

adaptation/ecosystems.html

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Climate Ready Water Utilities

Adaption Strategies Guide for Water Utilities (EPA Publication No. 817-K-13-001). Rockville,

MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2013. Water Audits and Water Loss

Control for Public Water Systems. Retrieved from:

http://water.epa.gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/upload/epa816f13002.pdf

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014. Contaminants of Emerging

Concern. Retrieved from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014. National Menu of Stormwater

Best Management Practices. Retrieved from

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/index.cfm December 2014.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014b. Stormwater Case Studies.

Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/Stormwater-Case-

Studies.cfm December 2014.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2014. Urban Nonpoint Source Fact

Sheet. Retrieved from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban_facts.cfm

US Geological Survey. 2014. Effects of Urban Development on Floods. Fact Sheet 076-03.

Retrieved from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/

Vasiljevic, B., McBean, E., and Gharabaghi, B., 2012. “Trends in Rainfall Intensity for Stormwater

Designs in Ontario”, Journal of Water and Climate Change, 03.1, pp.1-10.

Vincent, L. A., Wang, X. L., Milewska, E. J., Wan, H., Yang, F., and Swail, V, 2012. A second

generation of homogenized canadian monthly surface air temperature for climate trend

analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117, D18110.

Water Research Foundation. 2013. Responding to Extreme Weather and Climate Events.

Retrieved from:

http://www.waterrf.org/resources/Lists/PublicCaseStudiesList/Attachments/25/Extreme_We

ather_Case_Studies_Compendium.pdf

Water Research Foundation. 2014. Water Quality Impacts of Extreme Weather-Related Events.

Retrieved from:

http://www.waterrf.org/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4324_ProjectSummary.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ecosystems.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ecosystems.html

http://water.epa.gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/upload/epa816f13002.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/Stormwater-Case-Studies.cfm%20December%202014

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/Stormwater-Case-Studies.cfm%20December%202014

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban_facts.cfm

Wenger, S.J., Roy, A.H., Jackson, C.R., Bernhardt, E.S., Carter, T.L., Filoso, S., Gibson, C.A.,

Hession, W.C., Kaushal, S.S., Marti, E., Meyer, J.L., Palmer, M.A., Paul, M.J., Purcell, A.H.,

Ramirez, A., Rosemond, A.D., Schofield, K.A., Sudduth, E.B., Walsh, C.J., 2009. Twenty-six key

research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. J.

North Am. Benth. Soc. 28 (4), 1080–1098.

Williams, C. 2014. “Catasrophic drain failure opens large hole in Phoenix City parking lot”,

Ledger-Enquirer. Retrieved from: http://www.ledger-

enquirer.com/2014/10/07/3343595_storm-sewer-drain-failure-opens.html?rh=1

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR), 2014. Bureau of Watershed

Management Technical Standard – Stormwater Management Program – Bioretention for

Infiltration. Effective October 29, 2014. Guidance # 3200-2014-02.

Wood. J. (2013, September 23). Province boosts cost of Alberta floods to $6 billion. Calgary

Herald. Retrieved from:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Province+boosts+cost+Alberta+floods+billion/8952392/

story.html

Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Third Assessment Report Climate Change 2001:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Climate Change 2012: Insurance and Other Financial Services online:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap8.pdf at 419

World Health Organisation, 2014. Flooding and communicable diseases fact sheet. Humanitarian

Health Action. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/ems/flood_cds/en/

WSA (Water Security Agency), 2014. Stormwater Guidelines – EPB 322. Government of

Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://www.saskh20.ca/DWBinder/epb322.pdf

Zhao, J. Q., & Rajani. 2002. Construction and Rehabilitation Costs for Buried Pipe with a Focus on

Trenchless Technologies. Ottawa, ON: NRC, Institute for Research in Construction

Zizzo, L., Allan, T., Kocherga, A. April, 2014. Stormwater Management in Ontario: Legal Issues i

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap8.pdf%20at%20419