This article was downloaded by: [Environment Canada Library Services / Offert par les Services de bibliothèqued'Environnement Canada]On: 13 March 2015, At: 13:25Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadiennedes ressources hydriquesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

A Resiliency Assessment of Ontario's Low-waterResponse Mechanism: Implications for AddressingManagement of Low-water Under Potential FutureClimate ChangeJenna Disch a , Paul Kay a & Linda Mortsch ba Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 UniversityAvenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canadab Adaptation and Impacts Research Section, Environment Canada, c/o Faculty ofEnvironment, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L3G1, CanadaPublished online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Jenna Disch , Paul Kay & Linda Mortsch (2012) A Resiliency Assessment of Ontario's Low-water ResponseMechanism: Implications for Addressing Management of Low-water Under Potential Future Climate Change , Canadian WaterResources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 37:2, 105-123, DOI: 10.4296/cwrj3702916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3702916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Resiliency Assessment of Ontario’s Low-water

Response Mechanism: Implications for Addressing

Management of Low-water Under Potential Future Climate

Change

Jenna Disch, Paul Kay, and Linda Mortsch

Abstract: Investigation on the performance of Ontario’s low-water response (OLWR) mechanismduring current periods of drought is an important research task given that climate variability andchange may alter the frequency and intensity of extreme events. Factors that influence the resilience ofthe OLWR mechanism and the ability of the mechanism to guide water allocation decisions areidentified based on interview responses from 13 OLWR team members in the Grand River watershed.Results of this study indicate that the OLWR mechanism may not be resilient enough to operate underconditions of serious low-flow and that aquatic ecosystems could be compromised during times ofserious water scarcity. Water use allocation priority, water use classification categories, ambiguitysurrounding the ecosystem-based approach to water management, and the tendency of the low-waterresponse mechanism to operate in reactive mode were identified as issues that hinder the way themechanism is currently administered, suggesting that the mechanism may not operate in a resilientfashion under a changing climate. The infrequent occurrence of drought in Ontario results in acontinuous manifestation of the hydro-illogical cycle which is perhaps one reason why shortcomings ofthe mechanism remain unaddressed. A challenge is to find practical ways of enhancing the resilience ofthe low-water response mechanism using a proactive approach to effectively manage water resourcesduring times of drought. Creation of a more resilient low-water response plan will ultimately enhancefuture drought-preparedness under projected changed climate conditions for Ontario and aidadaptation strategies to reduce future vulnerability.

Jenna Disch1, Paul Kay1, and Linda Mortsch2

1 Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West,Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.

2 Adaptation and Impacts Research Section, Environment Canada, c/o Faculty of Environment, University ofWaterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Submitted June 2011; accepted March 2012. Written comments on this paper will be accepted untilDecember 2012.

Canadian Water Resources Journal Vol. 37(2): 105�123 (2012) 2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques doi: 10.4296/cwrj3702916 Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Resume: L’etude du rendement de l’initiativeintitulee Programme d’intervention en ma-tiere de ressources en eau de l’Ontario(OLWR) au cours des periodes de secheresseconstitue une importante mission derecherche etant donne que la variabilite et lechangement climatiques peuvent modifier lafrequence et l’intensite des evenements ex-tremes. Les facteurs qui influent sur laresilience du programme OLWR et sur sacapacite d’orienter les decisions en matiered’affectation des ressources en eau ont etedegages a partir des reponses donnees a uneentrevue menee aupres de 13 membres del’equipe OLWR dans le bassin de la riviereGrand. Les resultats de la presente etudeindiquent que le programme OLWR n’estpeut-etre pas assez resilient pour sa mise enæuvre dans des conditions de debit faiblegrave et que les ecosystemes aquatiquespourraient etre compromis pendant les peri-odes de grave penurie d’eau. La priorite quanta l’affectation de l’utilisation des eaux, lescategories de classification de l’utilisation del’eau, l’ambiguıte entourant l’approche eco-systemique de la gestion de l’eau et latendance du programme d’intervention afonctionner en mode reactif ont ete cerneescomme etant des obstacles a la maniere dontl’initiative est actuellement administree, cequi donne a penser que le programme n’off-rira peut-etre pas la resilience voulue dans unclimat changeant. La survenance peu fre-quente des secheresses en Ontario se traduitpar une manifestation constante du «cyclehydro-illogique», ce qui constitue sans douteune raison pour laquelle les imperfections duprogramme n’ont pas encore ete comblees. Ledefi consiste a trouver des moyens pratiquesd’accroıtre la resilience du programme d’in-tervention en matiere de ressources en eau al’aide d’une approche proactive de la gestionefficace des ressources en eau en periode desecheresse. La creation d’un plan d’interven-tion plus resilient ameliorera au bout ducompte l’etat de preparation face aux secher-esses futures dans le contexte du changementclimatique projete pour l’Ontario et faciliteral’elaboration de strategies d’adaptation visanta reduire la vulnerabilite future.

Introduction

Despite recent progress made by the Ontario govern-ment to anticipate management of low-water events,the functionality of low-water response mechanismsand programs under conditions of climatic change hasnot yet been examined. Freshwater is a naturalresource crucial to both the economic and environ-mental well-being of Ontario. Water supports vir-tually all aspects of human activity including health,industrial development, and recreation. By 2031,Ontario’s population is expected to increase from 13million to 16 million and 80% of this growth will begeographically concentrated in the province’s GreaterGolden Horseshoe area (Ontario Ministry of Finance,2009; Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA),2005a). One result of population growth will beincreasing demand and potential competition forlimited water resources in the region unless efficiencyand conservation efforts are improved to meet thischallenge (GRCA, 2005a; Environment Canada,2007).

Two major provincial policy instruments formanaging water quantity in Ontario exist today: thePermit to Take Water Program (PTTW), theprimary water allocation regulatory mechanism underOntario’s Water Resources Act (OWRA) administeredby the Ontario Ministry of the Environment(OMOE); and the Ontario low-water response(OLWR) framework designed for the purpose ofdrought management. The OLWR framework wascreated in 2001 by the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources (OMNR) in collaboration with severalother ministries and organizations. OMNR is thedesignated lead agency responsible for low water anddrought management under the Emergency Manage-

ment and Civil Protection Act.

Whereas the orientation of the OMOE is towardenvironmental protection, the orientation of OMNRfavors resource development and user friendliness andpromotes economic opportunities within the resourcesector. OLWR is a strategy for local water users andthose with an interest in water taking to have inputinto the environmental, economic, and social well-being of their community. It aims to mitigate theimpacts of drought through ‘‘implementation ofshort-term, low-water management strategies’’(OMNR et al., 2002; Durely et al., 2003). Progres-sively severe low-water conditions (i.e., Level I, LevelII and Level III) in a watershed are addressed through

106 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

corresponding levels of response actions (Table 1) anda generalized attempt has been made to classify wateruses in a priority ranking to guide water restrictionsunder low-water conditions (Table 2).

Concerns over the availability of water and thechallenges of water allocation amongst a growingpopulation are heightened by the potential implica-tions to hydrology of climate change in the GreaterGolden Horseshoe area (de Loe et al., 2001; Cun-derlink and Simonovic, 2005; Chiotti and Lavender,2008). Scientists have projected Ontario is likely towarm over the next 75 to 100 years by an annualaverage of 2�58C (Natural Resources Canada, 2007).Associated with this warming trend are shifts in theamount, intensity and distribution of precipitation,changes in the amount, duration, and distribution ofsnow-cover, and higher rates of evaporation andevapotranspiration. High intensity rainfall events

could be interspersed with more severe, frequent, orlonger duration droughts (Lavender et al., 1998; Bateset al., 2008). Under some scenarios of climate changethe frequency and intensity of droughts is expected toincrease (Gabriel and Kreutzwiser, 1993; Lemmenand Warren, 2004; Field et al., 2007). In combination,such conditions could result in increased frequencyand duration of low-water conditions.

Investigation of how the OLWR mechanism mayperform during current periods of drought is aparticularly important research task given the like-lihood that climate variability and change will alterthe frequency and intensity of extreme events. To datethere have been a number of climate change hydro-logic impact assessments conducted for the GreatLakes Basin. Many of these assessments project lowernet basin supplies and water levels (Mortsch et al.,2000; Quinn and Lofgren, 2000; Lofgren et al.,

Table 1. Levels of low-water conditions and associated response actions (OMOE 2005).

Description

of Level

Level 1 � Warning;Voluntary

Conservation

Level II � Conservation andRestriction on

Non-Essential Use

Level 1 � Conservation,Restriction,

Regulation

Goal m Promote voluntary water

conservation and management

among all users to reduce further

water shortages.

m Target further water

conservation and management

message more directly.

m Publicize water use restrictions.

m Consider priorities for water

restrictions and other water

use reduction at Level III.

m Develop and implement

priorities on water

management strategies and

water use restrictions.

Target m 10% voluntary reduction in water use

among all sectors.

m Further 10% water use

reduction (20% total).

m Reduce and manage water use

demands to the maximum

extent.

m Response designed to mitigate

impending impacts of an

escalated drought condition.

Table 2. Classification of water uses during periods of water shortage in Ontario (OMNR et al., 2002).

Classification Description

Essential m Uses pertaining to human life and health: drinking and sanitation, health care, public

institutions, public protection.

m Basic ecological functions.

Important m Uses for social and economic well-being.

m No ecological uses/categories within this group.

m During times of water scarcity this category poses the greatest challenges for water

allocation, as it may be necessary to establish priorities and rank activities.

Non-Essential m Uses that can be interrupted for a short term without significant impact: filling private

swimming pools, lawn watering, filling public and private fountains, vehicle washing.

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 107

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

2002; Angel and Kunkel, 2010). A climate changeassessment conducted by Bellamy et al. (2002) hassuggested that certain areas within the Grand Riverwatershed are projected to have reductions in futuresummer stream-flow. A growing population coupledwith low summer flows suggests that increasingtension over the allocation of water amongst stake-holders could arise in the watershed.

To date a number of studies have exploredhistorical and future low-water conditions in South-ern Ontario. Koshida et al. (1999) assessed thelessons learned from previous drought years inSouthern Ontario, Southam et al. (1999) producedan assessment of the hydrologic impacts of climatechange on supply and demand issues in the GrandRiver Basin, and Klaassen (2000) conducted aclimatological assessment to determine drought yearsin Ontario. The Grand River Conservation Author-ity examined the conditions for an extreme low-water event in a sensitive sub-watershed (GRCA,2007, 2008). The literature on drought in SouthernOntario has focused primarily on describing droughtconditions and associated impacts, but there havebeen no studies that have explored or assessed theresilience of the OLWR mechanism. Of particularinterest is the capacity of the OLWR mechanism tocope with the tensions created when water supplyand demand trend in opposite directions and howeffective the OLWR mechanism will be in allocatingwater amongst stakeholders and the environmentduring times of drought.

Resilient systems, as applied to integrated systemsof people and the natural environment, are character-ized by their ability to tolerate disturbance withoutcollapsing into a qualitatively different state. Thereare three defining characteristics of a resilient system.Firstly, a resilient system is capable of undergoingchange while retaining the same controls on functionand structure. Secondly, a resilient system is capableof self-organization. Thirdly, a resilient system buildsand increases the capacity for learning and adaptation(Resilience Alliance, 2008).

Conducting a resiliency assessment on the abilityof the OLWR mechanism to operate under currentlow-water drought conditions is the first step ingauging whether the mechanism is likely to operatewell under changed climate conditions. A proactive,rather than reactive approach, to water managementshould ideally provide resilience to the low-waterresponse mechanism. Additionally, a resilient low-

water response mechanism should embrace humanand natural systems as complex systems where water isapportioned equitably between the two during severeperiods of drought (Walker and Salt, 2006). Humanneeds should not trump basic environmental require-ments, and operation of the mechanism should not behindered during periods of intense drought. Oncecurrent weaknesses in the mechanism have beenidentified, measures can be adopted by which itsoperation may be strengthened and improved to meetfuture low-flow conditions.

Since implementation of OLWR, there havebeen brief periods that have met the physical criteriafor a Level III condition*the most extreme level*,but a Level III condition has never been declared inOntario (e.g., Record Staff, 2002; GRCA, 2008).There may have been reluctance to declare a LevelIII condition due to the way the OLWR planoperates and lack of effectiveness in its mechanism,but this area has not been the focus of any studiesand little attention has been given to water manage-ment decisions under the highest state of wateremergency. Because an extreme, long durationlow-water event has never occurred in Ontariosince the mechanism’s inception, there remainsuncertainty surrounding its current ability to operateeffectively.

The objectives of this paper are: to explore thecurrent performance of the OLWR mechanism underlow-flow conditions in order to assess the resilience ofthe mechanism in functioning under a Level III low-flow induced climate change scenario; to assesswhether the current mechanism is capable of preser-ving water for natural ecosystems under conditions ofstress; to make recommendations on how commu-nities and local water managers within a watershedmight make challenging allocation decisions whenwater is in short supply; and to provide insights onhow the current mechanism might be made resilientin light of these findings. The results of thisassessment will enable better future preparednesswithin the realm of anticipatory resource managementand could contribute to the development of a robustfuture low-water management strategy for operationunder changing hydrologic conditions in the GrandRiver watershed. Results from this study will addi-tionally serve as a starting point in guiding andstrengthening other low-water management mechan-isms and policies elsewhere in Canada.

108 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Study Area

The Grand River watershed is southern Ontario’slargest watershed, located west of the Greater Tor-onto Area between Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, andLake Erie (Figure 1). Situated within the Great LakesBasin, it covers an approximate area of 7,000 km2 andincludes the tributary systems of the Conestogo,Speed, Eramosa and Nith Rivers (Nelson et al.,2003). Several large cities, including Guelph, Water-loo, Kitchener, Cambridge, and Brantford lie withinthe watershed. Currently, 925,000 people live withinits borders (City of Brantford, 2010).

Fifty-four local area municipalities (cities, towns,townships), 11 regional or county municipalities, twoFirst Nations communities, and several provincial andfederal government departments and agencies (in-cluding the GRCA) are involved in managing orusing the water resources of the Grand River Basin(Francis, 1996). Groundwater serves as the primarysource of water for 80% of the residents, andnumerous industrial and agricultural users are alsoheavily dependent on groundwater for their opera-tions. Some areas are entirely dependent on surfacewater supplies, such as the City of Brantford (City ofBrantford, 2010). Municipal water provision is thepredominant use in the watershed at 60.8% of thetotal annual volume of water used (GRCA, 2011).Other sectors with particularly high water use include:

agriculture, aggregate washing, industrial (includingwater for manufacturing and cooling), business(supermarkets, coffee shops and offices), water bot-tling, golf courses, and sod farms (Table 3; Disch,2010). The challenge is to appropriately allocate tothese uses with sufficient apportionment to fisheriesand the natural environment.

The Grand River watershed’s most severe histor-ical drought occurred during the 1930s, but thewatershed has experienced several hydrologicdroughts since the 1960s (e.g., Klaassen, 2000; Nelsonet al., 2003). Recent hydrologic drought years include1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002 during which localstream-flow and reservoir levels became acutely lowand aquatic biota were placed under stress (e.g.,Avery, 1998; Burtt, 1998; Koshida et al., 1999; Burtt2001; Record Staff, 2001; GRCA, 2003). Addition-ally, the summer of 2007 had very dry periods duringwhich low storage in reservoirs challenged thecapacity to provide sufficient minimum flows tomaintain ecological health in the Grand River(Farwell et al., 2008). The Grand River watershedhas an active low-water response (LWR) teambecause of past conditions of low-flow. The team’scomposition is representative of other watersheds inOntario, lending utility to this watershed as a casestudy for this research (Table 4).

A combination of additional factors in light ofclimate change enhance the challenge of water

Figure 1. Location of the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada.

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 109

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

management within the Grand River watershedfurther contributing to its suitability as a study site:a growing urban population; dependency on theGrand River for wastewater assimilation and a portionof municipal drinking water supplies (particularly in

the lower reaches); a history of significant droughts inthe past century; and, location well inland fromalternate sources of water. Some municipalities withinthe watershed are considering the construction of apipeline to take water from Lake Erie to meetanticipated increases in water demand in the future(GRCA, 2005b). These factors suggest that futurewater shortages are likely to have serious implicationson the allocation and apportionment of water.

Methods

The research methodology utilized in this studyfollows the form of a case study. Yin (2003) definesthe case study research method as an empirical inquirythat investigates a contemporary phenomenon withinits real-life context, useful in understanding complexsocial phenomena and for conducting in-depthinvestigations of a specific issue to uncover attitudes,perception, beliefs, and interactions of groups.Although case study research has small sample sizes,it is a useful indication of the general situation because

Table 4. OLWR team profile in the Grand River watershed (Disch, 2010).

Voting Members (n�16) Non-voting Members (n�8)

Municipal and First Nations – 5 interviewed Federal

Centre Wellington, Southgate Environment Canada

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Fisheries and Oceans Canada

City of Guelph

County of Brant Provincial – 1 interviewed

City of Brantford Ministry of the Environment

Guelph Eramosa Township Ministry of Natural Resources

Six Nations Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Sectors – 6 interviewed

Agriculture Technical Advisors – 1 interviewed

Brant Federation of Agriculture Trout Unlimited

tobacco/ginseng grower GRCA

vegetable grower

ginseng grower

Golf Course Superintendent

Aggregate Producer

Commercial Bottler

Anglers and Hunters

GRCA

Table 3. Water use summary of the top 11 water

demands in the Grand River Watershed (GRCA, 2011).

Major Water Uses

Percent of Total Annual

Water Use

Municipal Supply 60.8

Dewatering 6.1

Agriculture � Irrigation 6.0

Aggregate Washing 4.5

Agriculture � Livestock 4.4

Rural Domestic 4.3

Aquaculture 3.5

Remediation 2.0

Communal water supply 1.7

Other � industrial 1.4

Golf course irrigation 1.3

110 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

it investigates a phenomenon within its real-lifecontext and deals with richness and depth (ratherthan breadth) of information not usually offered byother methods (Yin, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Data used in this case study were collected frominterviews and document analysis conducted betweenJuly and December 2009. The entire LWR team(23 in total) in the Grand River watershed was sent astudy participation email requesting a face-to-faceinterview; 13 members agreed to participate in theresearch phase (Table 4). Interview participantsrepresented the full cross-section of water-use inter-ests in the watershed and came from municipal,agricultural, conservational, recreational, and com-mercial areas.

This research explored three major themes:deficiencies in the LWR process; potential responsesto a climate change scenario; and suggested areas forimprovement (Table 5). Interview questions wereformulated around these three major themes to gaininsight into the way the OLWR mechanism oper-ates (a list of interview questions is available fromthe authors upon request). Questions that wereexplored in this research included: how are waterallocation priorities determined in the OLWRdocument and by OLWR team members; what ismeant by an ecosystem-based approach to waterallocation and how might this approach be upheld ina changing-climate; and what areas of the OLWRmechanism might be strengthened in order for it tooperate in a resilient fashion under a climate-inducedlow-flow scenario. Interview questions regardinghow the OLWR mechanism might operate under

a climate-change scenario were developed from oneassessment conducted by Bellamy et al. (2002) whichprojects low flows in the Grand River watershedusing a climate change scenario based on a run ofthe Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling andAnalysis (CCCma) Coupled Global Climate Model1 (CGCM1), input into the Guelph All WeatherStorm Event Runoff hydrologic model (GAWSER).For the decade of the 2090s the assessment projectsa decrease in average summer monthly flow ofapproximately 13�23% for select reaches in thewatershed (Bellamy et al., 2002). This assessmentof hydrologic impacts is the most current for theGrand River watershed. Although more recentclimate change scenarios have been produced forthe region, hydrological implications of them havenot yet been modeled.

The questions and structure of the interviewapproach were designed following a review of keystrategies in social research methodology (Dunn,2000; Yin, 2003; Singleton and Straits, 2005; Babbie,2007; Palys and Atchison, 2008). Interviews, con-ducted by the lead author, were a hybrid of structuredand semi-structured formats. The structured approachensured each participant was presented with the samequestions in the same order so answers could bereliably aggregated and comparisons could be madewith confidence. The semi-structured format per-mitted further questioning along specific lines ofinquiry that emerged during the interview so thatunanticipated information could be obtained andincorporated due to the novel and exploratory natureof the research (Disch, 2010).

Table 5. Conceptualization framework.

Area of Exploration

Area of Interest under Climate-induced

Low-flow Scenario Components

OLWR deficiencies Allocation Categorization of uses

Prioritizing the essential uses

Ecosystem-based approach Definition

Incorporation in decisions

Allocation Decision-making Sector priority

Maintaining equity

Partnership

Areas for improvement Strengthening the mechanism Policies and management actions

Direction towards resilience

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 111

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Interviews were audio recorded with permissionof the interviewees and extensive notes highlightingkey findings were taken throughout. Following theinterviews, complete individual transcripts wereprepared and shared with the correspondingparticipant, who provided a final check for accuracyand clarification before the data analysis stage.Coding, an interpretive technique that organizessocial science data to discover patterns leading totheoretical understanding, was used to analyze data(Rubin and Rubin, 2005). Individual participantresponses from the transcripts were combined intoa list of responses associated with each question.Views and opinions mentioned by three or moreparticipants were considered salient and were codedas common responses. Coding categories wereformed by grouping common responses and sum-marizing them into key concepts/ideas. With eachsuccessive scan of coding, the intent of the analysiswas to generalize responses into more integrativeideas until overarching themes emerged.

An example of how coding categories weredeveloped to inform this research is presented inTable 6. Information in Table 6 was extracted fromresponses to the question on how participants believedthe OLWR mechanism might be modified to betterprepare for future water shortages. First, responses tothis question were reviewed and recommendationslisted by three or more participants were listed under‘‘recommendations’’*the start of the coding process.To synthesize the information, the list of recommen-dations was integrated into a more generalized set ofconcepts from which the emergent theme was devel-oped. Where information did not fit into any themeor category or where a theme or category blurred twoor more separate concepts, new categories wereformulated to fit the data and previously examinedmaterial was recoded. Data analysis was consideredcomplete once all individual concepts and themes hademerged.

For some questions coding was not deemedappropriate (e.g., when participants were asked todescribe the meaning of an ecosystem-basedapproach, or to list essential uses of water) andthen a conceptual synthesis strategy was used. Forexample, importance rank to determine the level ofwater-use essentiality was determined by assigning anumber to every water use mentioned by a partici-pant. Participants were asked to list the essential usesof water from the most to least essential. Elementsin these lists were numbered for each participant,with a score of one being assigned to the firstessential use mentioned, and successive numbersbeing assigned to the other uses. An inclusive listof all essential uses defined by participants wasassembled and the assigned number from everyparticipant’s essential water use ranking was com-bined in this list. The total number for each use wasthen divided by the number of times it had beenmentioned, with a lower score indicating a higherlevel of essentiality (Table 7).

Results

Factors Influencing the Resilience of the OLWR

Four factors limiting the resilience of the OLWRmechanism were identified in this research. Thesewere related to the determination of allocationpriority within the three defined water-use categories(essential, important, and non-essential), and dis-agreement concerning classification of water-usesbetween on-the-ground LWR team members andwhat is defined in the OLWR document. Thetendency of human needs for water to supersedeenvironmental needs is another factor that reducesresilience of the mechanism. Lastly, the tendency forthe mechanism to operate in reactive modeimpedes resilience of the mechanism. Movement

Table 6. Category coding example.

Recommendations Grouping Emergent Theme

Understand mechanism operation Knowledge of mechanism Proactive-management approach

Outline of essential/non-essential and mid-range uses Mock scenario testing

Research

Next step study template

Planning in advance

112 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

from reactive approach to a proactive approach isthus warranted. These factors highlight importantconsiderations that should be incorporated into thedevelopment of future low-water response plans,enabling them to better meet the stresses of low-flow conditions under a changing climate.

Determination of Allocation Priority within

Water Use Categories

The OLWR mechanism prioritizes water-uses byassigning them into three different categories ofimportance: essential, important, and non-essential.When interviewees were asked to assign whatthey believed were the essential, important, andnon-essential uses under a changed climate scenario,it was found that no formal guidance existsin OLWR documentation to determine allocationprioritization within the categories. The category ofimportant uses of water in the OLWR document, forexample, includes water that is critical to industrialprocesses, commercial facilities (hotels and restau-rants), and key agricultural crops (OMNR et al., 2002),but no hierarchy or ranking exists among water-useswithin the category. Participants suggested that such ahierarchy has never been established because in a crisisdrought situation severe restrictions on water-usewould impact the livelihood of certain water users

and incomes could be compromised. ‘‘No one inmanagement positions wants to take responsibilityfor decisions with such effects,’’ stated an anonymousrespondent.

LWR team members believed that it was theprovince’s responsibility to make such determinationsof priority during periods of low-flows under achanging climate. This is despite the fact that theprovince has delegated decision-making authority tolocal LWR teams so that decisions can be made inlight of local expertise recognizing unique localsituations and interests. One barrier identified as towhy this step has not yet been taken is that officialsin higher levels of government are not willing todefine a hierarchy of priority. This reluctance camefrom the sense that a priority ranking is too much ofa sensitive and controversial topic, leaving officialshesitant to tackle the issue. There is politicalimportance in preserving stable, working relation-ships with peers in different sectors and priorityranking could upset these relationships if disagree-ment in placement exists: ‘‘it’s a provincial respon-sibility to determine what the rules and theprocedures are for water taking, so we’re waitingfor some provincial direction, [but] no one is goingto put their head out initially to start that becauseit’s just too difficult to work with. . .. we want tohave working relationships with our local peers indifferent industries’’ (anonymous respondent). De-spite lacking a formal method of prioritizing water-use, agreement existed that the highest water-usepriority would always be human consumption,along with sustaining the health and safety of thepopulation.

Disagreement in Water Use Classification

Team members’ views revealed different perspectiveson the OLWR document’s meaning of essential,important, and non-essential uses of water, andplacement of water-use within these categoriesvaried depending on the water sector a teammember represented. When team members wereasked to rank what they believed were the essentialuses of water, it was found that members’ viewsdiffered from those listed in the OLWR document(Table 2 Essential vs. Table 7). Diluting effluent,an important aspect for human health, was listed byonly one respondent as an essential use. Other

Table 7. Identified essential water uses under a

climate-induced low-flow scenario (1 � highest

importance). Participants were asked to include

ecosystem functions in their ranking of essential

uses for creation of this table.

Water Use

Number of

Respondents

(n � 13)

Average

Ranking of

Importance

Human � potable 13 1.1

Ecosystem 12 1.6

Business 3 1.8

Fire Protection 3 1.8

Agricultural 6 2.0

Agriculture (livestock) 6 2.0

Industry 2 2.5

Agriculture (crop) 1 3.0

Diluting Effluent 1 4.0

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 113

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

respondents suggested that water used for businesswas more important than fire protection (again onlymentioned by one respondent), the former beingclassified under OLWR as an important use andthe latter classified under OLWR as an essentialuse. There was a tendency for respondents to blurthe line between essential and important usesresulting in confusion distinguishing between thetwo (Table 7). When respondents were not re-minded to include ecosystem functions as anessential use in a previous section of the interview,less than half included ecosystem functions as anessential use.

Agricultural water users were more inclined to listwater for agriculture and livestock as essential uses,whereas the OLWR mechanism currently lists themas important uses. Team members who used water formaintaining green lawns as part of a business strategy(e.g., golf courses) listed this use as important.OLWR would classify this as an aesthetic use andcategorize it under non-essential. Overlap betweenwater allocation priority categories was predominantfor business and industrial uses and there wasconsistent discrepancy in regards to the placementof water used in car wash businesses, sod productionbusinesses, the golf industry, garden centers, andnurseries.

Barriers to Incorporating the Ecosystem-based

Approach

OMOE has stated that it will use an ‘‘ecosystem-based approach that considers both water taker’sreasonable needs for water and the natural functionof the ecosystem’’ through water apportionment,whereupon the highest priority will be placed onpreventing significant environmental harm to aquaticenvironments as well as all other natural environments(OMOE, 2005).

Through incorporation of an ecosystem-basedapproach and its mandate to limit the amount ofwater that is withdrawn by water users, the PTTW isone framework under which the environment can beprotected when water must be allocated. OLWRteam members were skeptical, however, that theecosystem-based approach as stated under thePTTW could be maintained using the OLWRmechanism during times of severe water shortage ina changed climate scenario. Agreement existed

amongst OLWR team members that during timesof shortage, essential human needs would be the firstpriority regardless of the OMOE’s intent to protectaquatic resources (Table 7). When asked to listessential uses of water without being prompted toconsider ecosystem functions, only six out of the 13participants listed water for ecosystem health as anessential use, while potable water for human con-sumption was listed by all 13 participants as essential.This signals a potentially significant issue with respectto environmental protection under low-water condi-tions. Environmental protection is given a lower waterallocation priority and suggests protection of aquaticenvironments may not be at the forefront of thethinking of those implementing OLWR.

The policy statement surrounding the ecosystem-based approach in the PTTW reflects heightenedattention to the natural environment. Memberssuggested, however, that an ecosystem-based ap-proach is analogous to an holistic approach, wherehuman stakeholders are part of the ecosystem. Anecosystem-based approach is

like a holistic approach where all of the differentstakeholders will be addressed. . . [but it is] a bit of afoggy statement, because. . . humans are part of thatecological network. . . What [it means] in a shrouded way,is that [natural ecosystems] will be our most importantthing, unless something else is more important. Andpeople are more important. There is no question thatsurvival of the human race will be the number onepriority-without question (anonymous respondent).

Team members were in agreement that the eco-system approach is a broad-brush concept withgood intentions, but the tendency of the ecosystem-based approach to include all levels of the ecosystem(humans included), could mean that protection ofaquatic life may not be guaranteed under times ofwater shortage in a changing climate: ‘‘[theecosystem-based approach] sounds good. . . but howit’s going to fly in real life, I have no idea how that isgoing to work’’ (anonymous respondent). The humancomponent of an integrated ecosystem-basedapproach could thus potentially trump environmentalneeds. Regardless of the intent of the OMOEconcerning the ecosystem-based approach and theprotection of aquatic resources, respondents were clearthat during times of extreme water shortage humanswould be the number one priority; ‘‘people [in need

114 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

of] fresh drinking water are going to win’’ (anon-ymous respondent).

Proactively Incorporating Resilience into the

Mechanism

Many members suggested that if the OLWRmechanism is to operate effectively under a low-flow climate scenario, the mechanism needs to beproactive in categorizing water uses. Solid under-standing is needed as to how the mechanism willoperate under conditions of serious low-flow beforethey occur. To this end, mock water supplyscenarios would be a useful tool to determine howwater might be allocated amongst stakeholders andthe environment. Team members suggested thatraising public awareness of water issues and in-corporating conservation and efficiency strategies toaddress potential future shortages should be acomponent of a proactive strategy working inconjunction with the operation of the mechanism.Other suggestions indirectly related to the incor-poration of resilience into the OLWR mechanismby means of a proactive approach included bettereducation and awareness programs for water users;better communication amongst residents in thewatershed in regards to water management; waterconservation tactics; improved housing and buildingstandards for water use; and system upgrades ofsewage treatment infrastructure and water appliancesencouraged by incentives through the province.

Discussion

Although the intention of OLWR is to deal proac-tively with future drought situations, for the mostpart, it is still implemented in reactive mode.The attempt to define water-use allocation prioritieswithin the three categories (i.e., Level I, Level II andLevel III) and decide ranking of water allocation usesin a crisis-mode response to serious low flow condi-tions is not likely to be a very effective managementprocess as there may not be time for analysis,negotiation and consensus-building necessary to de-termine water allocation strategies. If the present-daymechanism is not resilient enough to operate underconditions of low flow, there is concern as to whetherit can operate in the future when more tension could

develop due to interplay of a changing climate andincreasing population.

OLWR’s current mechanism for dealing withlow-water situations, through restricting water use, isonly a short-term solution to water scarcity ratherthan a broader water conservation and droughtpreparedness plan. The tendency is to address droughtissues only when a drought is underway. The responseis directed at immediate needs, providing what aremost likely costly remedies that attempt to balancecompeting interests in a charged atmosphere (Lyons,1994). This type of strategy makes sustainableresource management difficult since it guides waterresource mangers to reactive responses during a crisisrather than directing them to undertake proactivedrought contingency planning and an active dialoguewith stakeholders for phased adaptive responses.To be effective more broadly and in the long-term,the OLWR mechanism could be used to pursue aproactive approach emphasizing the principles ofanticipatory risk management and sustainable devel-opment in order to reduce societal and environmentalvulnerability. A proactive approach to dealing withcurrent hydrologic drought positions the water re-source mangers to deal more effectively with absorb-ing the increasing intensity, duration, and frequencyof drought that are projected in a changing climate(Hansen et al., 2003; Burton et al., 2006).

The concept of the hydro-illogical cycle is onepossible explanation why so much ambiguity remainsin the OLWR response mechanism and offers in-sights as to why it may not operate effectively under alow-flow climate change scenario (Wilhite, 1993). InWilhite’s conception of the hydro-illogical cycle, adrought creates awareness and concern about vulner-abilities and impacts, which may reach a stage of panicas the drought persists. Once the drought ends,however, lessons are forgotten or ignored, and plan-ning enters a stage of apathy until the next incident.Disaster management, however, should consist of aperiod of crisis management, when the focus is onimpact assessment and recovery from a drought,followed by a period of risk management, in whichmitigation and preparedness measures are institutedto reduce the impact of the next drought (Wilhite,2011). Historically, conditions of drought (dry weath-er, low stream-flow, and low water levels) have beenrelatively uncommon in Ontario. The need to firmlyestablish the OLWR mechanism since its implemen-tation has never been pressing because droughts occur

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 115

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

infrequently in Ontario (every 10�15 years), and theoccurrence of serious drought emergencies have beenminimal since 2002 (GRCA, 2003). More attentionhas been directed at managing floods. Solutions todrought management problems in Ontario continueto remain unaddressed because the period of watershortage is never prolonged or frequent enough tocreate very severe impacts that necessitate difficultmanagement decisions or concerted proactiveplanning after the event. Movement away from thecrisis management approach, characterized bythe hydro-illogical cycle, toward a more proactive,mitigation-based approach where measures are inplace beforehand to reduce and alleviate the severityof future water shortages is imperative for themechanism to operate in a resilient fashion.

Ambiguity in the OLWR Mechanism

One manifestation of the hydro-illogical cycle is thateconomically important water-dependent businessesin the Grand River watershed (i.e., car-washing, sodproduction, nurseries and garden centers, and golfcourse operations) have been placed ambiguouslywithin OLWR’s current water use classificationsystem and it is unclear whether these uses shouldbe considered business-oriented uses (important), oraesthetic uses (non-essential). This uncertainty couldhinder the way the mechanism operates underconditions of low-flow in a changed climate scenario.The same void exists for classification of water used tofill swimming pools; the filling of private pools islisted as a non-essential use, but the mechanism failsto address whether water for public swimming poolswould also be considered a non-essential use. Failureof the mechanism to address grey areas and lack ofagreement on water-use allocation priority suggestthat there are weaknesses in the operation of themechanism that make water allocation decisionsduring periods of water shortage more challenging.This implies that water allocation under a changedclimate scenario using the same mechanism could beeven more challenging. Discussion of water usecategorization during a drought event for apportion-ment during a Level III declaration could hinderresponse efforts and waste valuable time during whichsensitive aquatic habitats could suffer. To add resi-lience to the OLWR mechanism there needs to beagreement concerning water use categorization within

the watershed prior to an extreme drought event andareas of water-use categorization need to bere-discussed, clarified and negotiated before there isa crisis.

Failure of the OLWR mechanism to conciliatespecific stakeholders with car-washing, sod production,nurseries and garden center businesses, and golfcourse operations is yet another manifestation of thehydro-illogical cycle. Little attention has been givento the livelihoods of such stakeholders and it isuncertain whether they will be able to make endsmeet if a Level III condition is declared. In addressingthis issue, water managers in Ontario could turn tomethods implemented by other regions, such as theUnited States, where some progress has already beenmade by select States to move from a crisis-baseddrought approach to mitigation drought planning.States that have not yet adapted mitigation droughtplanning are slowly moving along this continuum andmeanwhile continue to develop more robust droughtpreparedness plans to deal with future needs (Wilhite,2011). One area comparable in climate to southernOntario is the Christina River Basin, situated withinthe states of Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland.The Christina River watershed utilizes a response-based approach to drought planning, similar to theGrand River watershed, and has operated underdrought emergency conditions for lengthy periods oftime. The Christina River Basin is particularlysusceptible to drought-like conditions due to agrowing population, increasing water demands, anda limited water supply because of its location wellinland. A mandatory ban on non-essential uses ofwater is implemented upon declaration of droughtemergency, but non-essential uses of water such ascar-washing businesses, sod production businesses,nurseries and garden center businesses, and golfcourse are given specific exemptions to mitigate theeffects of severe drought (Township of East Rockhill,2000). Explicit and detailed clauses in the ChristinaRiver Basin drought plan illustrate that dialogueresulting in flexibility can exist amongst stakeholders,minimizing adverse economic impact without theincorporation of an ‘‘all or nothing’’ approach. Thiscase represents the potential for future comparativeresearch.

In counter-argument, the ambiguity that existswithin the current OLWR mechanism providesflexibility for LWR teams to decide amongstthemselves how to address matters appropriate to

116 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

the physical and socio-economic characteristics of thewatershed, provided that no two droughts are thesame. Management flexibility is often a good strategyfor confronting uncertainty in natural resources issuesand can enhance our adaptive management techniques(Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986; Gunderson, 1999).Because managed resources will continuously changeas a result of human intervention with new uncer-tainties emerging, flexible agreements with mechan-isms for adjusting to change could be an importantcomponent of effective water management(McCaffrey, 2003).

Water managers within Ontario might start toexplore how the OLWR mechanism could makeallocation decisions under conditions of water short-age by using ‘‘gaming’’ or ‘‘mock’’ scenarios to addressLevel III conditions. Both the provincial governmentand LWR teams could use scenario exercises, but fordifferent purposes. Locally-based LWR teams canassist decision-making at the watershed level, whereasthe provincial government could explore larger-scaleoverarching decisions concerning allocation rights.Provincial responsibility could be to determine theoverarching rules and procedures for water taking, butthese decisions could be guided by the local waterresponse team at the watershed level, who are moreinformed on how things operate within the wa-tershed. Hesitancy surrounding water allocationprioritization may, in part, be due to political aspectsof distribution since allocations under times of short-age are likely to cause heated debate that couldchallenge working relationships (Kreutzwiser et al.,2004). Because social, economic, and environmentalvalues often clash as competition for scarce waterresources intensifies, identifying and initiating dialo-gue with stakeholders, including citizen groups thathave a stake in drought planning, and understandingtheir interests is critical. Involving these groups earlyand continuously is more likely to result in fairrepresentation and effective drought managementplanning. Discussions early in the process givesparticipants a chance to develop an understanding ofeach other’s various viewpoints and needs, therebyenhancing the likelihood of collaborative solutionsand reducing potential conflict during low-waterperiods (Hofmann and Mitchell, 1995; Leadlay andKreutzwiser, 1999; Kreutzwiser et al., 1999; Wilhiteet al., 2005). Research suggests that stakeholders needand want to know where they stand in terms of waterallocation, especially during low-water conditions,

and that they are willing to engage in dialogueregarding priorities so that agreement can be reached(Kreutzwiser et al., 1999).

The Ecosystem-based Approach

The broad scope of the ecosystem-based approach andthe tendency for humans to be included in this type ofapproach (and often dominate it) compromises up-holding environmental integrity in light of waterallocation practices during times of reduced flow.Whether the OLWR mechanism is resilient enoughto apportion sufficient amounts of water to sustainaquatic ecosystems and endangered or threatenedspecies during times of stress therefore remainsquestionable. The tendency of human needs for waterto supersede environmental water requirements underthe OLWR mechanism could in part be attributed tothe fact that OMNR’s mandate favors resourcedevelopment, user friendliness, and promotion ofeconomic opportunities within the resource sector,being a mitigation strategy under the Emergency

Management and Civil Protection Act (OMNR et al.,2002).

Despite the intention of OMOE to protect theenvironment using an ‘‘ecosystem based approach,’’the PTTW still specifies that water taking for‘‘domestic, farm purposes and fire protection areconsidered the most important uses, generally fol-lowed by takings for municipal water supply, thentaking of water for industrial, commercial andirrigation purposes’’ (OMOE, 2005). In combina-tion, under conditions of low flow, the PTTW andthe OLWR mechanism could both allocate water topeople over the environment. This remains a keychallenge in the functioning of the LWR mechan-ism. Managing ecology, economy and society asinterdependent and finding ways to serve all threeat once in ways that are mutually reinforcing isfundamental for sustainability (Gibson, 2009), but anattempt to establish the interdependence of thesethree components has not been made in Ontarioperhaps due to the fact that drought is infrequentand generally not severe, thereby reducing theimpetus to move to a more proactive managementapproach.

The demographics of the stakeholders inter-viewed in this study could unintentionally have ledour results to suggest that human needs could

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 117

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

potentially trump environmental requirementsthrough bias. More LWR team members werestakeholders with an interest in water for humanuse than environmental requirements. Tendency forhuman interest to dominate water use allocation isnot unrealistic, however, given that existing, long-term water allocations to human uses can create asense of entitlement and over-allocation that is oftendifficult to challenge. The strong tendency forstakeholders to appropriate environmental flows forsocial-economic uses in a drought emergency reiter-ates the pressing need to establish sound, robust, andproper allocation mechanisms before drought condi-tions occur, as well as the importance of raisingawareness and educating the public on environmentalrequirements (Milhous, 2006). Unless environmentalflows are established in importance in some ‘‘im-mutable’’ way, they could continue to be viewed as areserve of water available for human needs duringtimes of scarcity.

Towards a Proactive Approach

A proactive approach to drought managementmight address the Canadian perception of wealthof water, which has contributed to the neglect andmisuse of Canadian water resources (EnvironmentCanada, 2004; Sprague, 2007). Raising more aware-ness of ecosystem needs and their importance inorder to decrease the likelihood of discounting theenvironment is one way in which to encourageecosystem protection when contentious decisionsneed to be made. The perception of a plentifulsupply of water has spurred a tendency for Canadianwater resource management to focus primarily onthe concern of stakeholders to issues of flooding,thereby diverting attention to the opposite end ofthe water spectrum. Shifting water management toa more proactive approach, where efficiency andconservation measures are instilled is another solu-tion to help aid in environmental protection. Publiceducation concerning the importance of protectingaquatic resources for generations to come is essentialand should be stressed through policies in all levelsof government. Additionally, water should be usedmore efficiently in and on the landscape inconjunction with the LWR mechanism. Storage ofwater in aquifers or reservoirs, for example, duringtimes of plenty would allow for more flexibility in

management decisions during periods of extremescarcity (GRCA, 2003; Environment Canada,2004). Additionally, a proactive approach to droughtmanagement could incorporate advanced buildingstandards for water-related appliances and infra-structure on a local level, with the knowledge thatfuture water resources could become more limited asone result of climate change. Due to the highproportion of land use in agriculture in the GrandRiver watershed, specific proactive actions foragriculture might include: incorporating drip irriga-tion systems; changing to more drought tolerantcrops; watering at night when the wind effect isless; and being more conscious of how to keep theland more suited to using less water (e.g., applica-tion of mulch or straw).

Incorporating redundancy into the watershed’swater supply is another way to add resilience to themechanism and could be accomplished through thecreation of more reservoirs, dug off-line ponds, andstorage facilities which could be used in addition towater takings from rivers, streams, and groundwatersources. In areas where the climate is dry and hot,redundancy supply approaches have enabled majorurban areas to manage through a string of really dryyears; a much more sustainable solution than demandsupply approaches such as the ‘‘big pipeline’’ (Thomp-son, 2007). Incorporation of these concepts couldindirectly add resilience to the mechanism and inspirecreation of a more robust drought managementresponse plan.

Future directions to be explored might includewhat LWR team members understand by "basicecological functions", as listed in OLWR (OMNRet al., 2002). It is unclear, in the context in which itappears in OLWR, whether the term refers tonatural ecosystems or, as it is listed at the end of astring of human related needs, whether it pertainsonly to humans. If the first interpretation is meant,then OLWR does give consideration to environ-mental needs, albeit in a shrouded manner thatcould likewise be trumped by human needs. If thelatter interpretation is the case, then OLWR ismissing a crucial component*the needs of theaquatic environment*pointing to a serious short-coming of the mechanism.

118 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Concluding Remarks

Adaptation to climate change is a response thatseeks to reduce the vulnerability of both humanand natural systems to climate change effects(Pahl-Wostl, 2007). In order to successfully adaptto lower water flows as one potential result of achanging climate, it must first be established thatwater management strategies in place are resilientenough to operate under present conditions. Havingidentified sensitivities of the mechanism, transfor-mational changes can then be made for movementaway from areas of vulnerability to increase resi-liency and advance understanding of adaptationneeds.

Previous responses to drought in Ontario havebeen reactive, representing the crisis managementapproach. The reactive approach, characterized bythe hydro-illogical cycle, is ineffective and onlyminimally reduces the risks associated with futuredrought. The intention of the OLWR mechanismto be proactive in coping with droughts is com-mendable, but this study has shown that thereremain flaws in the mechanism leaving uncertaintysurrounding how it might operate under a low-flowinduced climate change scenario. Recommendationsmade in this study serve as a starting point on howgovernment officials for the province of Ontariomight resolve deficiencies in the OLWR plan toenhance resilience of the mechanism and decreasesystem vulnerability.

Due to the small interview sample size, cautionmust be applied when generalizing the findings ofthis case study to other watersheds in Ontario, asthey might not be transferable. Despite this limita-tion of our study, it must be acknowledged that theGrand River watershed is a particularly well-studiedwatershed, standing at the forefront of watermanagement in Ontario. For this reason it is awell-suited watershed from which to draw lessons.Considering that results of this study suggestweakness surrounding low-water management in aleading watershed, heightened attention must bedirected towards drought management strategies inother watershed jurisdictions if the province is tosuccessfully adapt to a changing climate. This studybegins to lay the foundation from which theresilience of policies and mechanisms in variousjurisdictions might be assessed.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank study participants from theGrand River low-water response team for their time,effort, and insights. In particular, we would like tothank James Etienne of the Grand River Conserva-tion Authority for his input and guidance during theinitial stages of the interview process. Finally, wewould like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whoprovided timely and constructive feedback on thisarticle. Opinions expressed in this paper are those ofthe authors and not the official position of anygovernment agency. Responsibility for any errors oromissions rests with the authors.

References

Angel, J. R., and K. E. Kunkel. 2010. The response ofGreat Lakes water levels to future climatescenarios with an emphasis on Lake Michigan-Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36:51�58.

Avery, R. 1998. Wildlife, farmers suffer in drought:Bruce and Grey Counties have been hit hardest.Toronto Star October 12: A4.

Babbie, E. 2007. The practice of social research.(11th ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth,608 pp.

Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P.Palutikof, ed. 2008. Climate change and water.

IPCC Technical Paper VI. Geneva:Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change,210 pp.

Bellamy, S., D. Boyd, and L. Minshall. 2002.Determining the effect of climate change on the

hydrology of the Grand River Watershed.Cambridge, ON: Grand River ConservationAuthority, 12 pp.

Burton, I., E. Diringer, and J. Smith. 2006.Adaptation to climate change: Internationalpolicy options. Arlington, VA: Pew Center onGlobal Climate Change, 28 pp. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/PEW_Adaptation.pdf(accessed December 2011).

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 119

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Burtt, B. 1998. The long hot summer. Record highsset while lakes reached record lows in the summerof ’98. Kitchener-Waterloo Record. September 12,C1.

Burtt, B. 2001. Summer drought may be the worst in100 years. Kitchener-Waterloo Record. September21, B04.

Chiotti, Q., and B. Lavender. 2008. Ontario. In From

impacts to adaptation. Canada in a changing climate

2007, ed. D. Lemmen, F. Warren, J. Lacroix,and E. Bush, 228�274. Ottawa, ON:Climate Change Impacts and AdaptationDirectorate.

City of Brantford. 2010. Watershed facts. http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/waterfrontmasterplan/Pages/WatershedFacts.aspx (accessed March 2010).

Cunderlink, J., and S. Simonovic. 2005.Hydrological extremes in a southwesternOntario river basin under future climateconditions. Hydrological Sciences Journal 50(4):631�654.

de Loe, R., R. Kreutzwiser, and L. Moraru. 2001.Adaptation options for the near term: Climatechange and the Canadian water sector.Global Environmental Change 11(3):231�245.

Disch, J. 2010. Assessing the resilience of Ontario’slow-water response plan under a changed climatescenario: An Ontario case study. MES Thesis.University of Waterloo, Ontario. http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/5539/1/Disch_Jenna.pdf (accessed March 10,2011).

Dunn, K. 2000. Interviewing. In Qualitative Research

Methods in Human Geography, ed. I. Hay, 50�82.Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Durley, J. L., R. de Loe, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2003.Drought contingency planning andimplementation at the local level in Ontario.Canadian Water Resources Journal 28(1):21�52.

Environment Canada. 2004. Threats to water

availability in Canada. NWRI ScientificAssessment Report Series No. 3 and ACSDScience Assessment Series No. 1. Burlington,ON: National Water Research Institute,128 pp.

Environment Canada. 2007. Municipal water use

report: Municipal water use, 2004 statistics. http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/8D951F7A-3866-47AA-98D6-1C49AB04E1BA/2007MunicipalWaterUseReport2004Statistics.pdf (accessed June2010).

Farwell, J., D. Boyd, and T. Ryan. 2008. Making

watersheds more resilient to climate change:

A response in the Grand River Watershed,

Ontario Canada. http://www.grandriver.ca/AboutGrand/ClimateChange08.pdf(accessed June 2010).

Field, C. B., L. D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D. L.Forbes, P. Kovacs, J. A. Patz, S. W. Running, andM. J. Scott. 2007. North America. In Climate

change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, ed. M. L. Parry, O. F.Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden,and C. E. Hanson, 617�652. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Francis, G. 1996. Governance: How might weapproach it? Grand Actions. The Grand Strategy

Newsletter 4: 7�8.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings aboutcase-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):219�245.

Gabriel, A. O., and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 1993.Drought impacts in Ontario: A review of impacts,1960�1989 and management implications.Canadian Water Resources Journal 18(2):117�132.

Gibson, R. 2009. Balance. Alternatives. Canadian

Environmental Ideas and Action: New Energy

December 36(1): 40.

120 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2003.Watershed report. Drought: Watershed is ready to

handle low-water conditions. Water QuantityIssues, Fall Report, p. 8. http://www.grandriver.ca/WatershedReportCard/pdf/WSReport_Page12.pdf (accessedJune 2010).

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).2005a. Watershed report. http://www.grandriver.ca/WatershedReportCard/2005_Fall_Grand_Pg3.pdf (accessedMay 2010).

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).2005b. Pipleline possibility. Watershed report

2005, p. 5. http://www.grandriver.ca/WatershedReportCard/2005_Fall_Grand_Pg5.pdf (accessed May 2010).

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2007.Pilot study: Recommending a low-water level III

condition for the Whitemans Creek

Watershed. Prepared for Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. Revised December 10,2007.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2008.Requirements for recommending level III in

Whitemans Creek Phase II. Prepared forOntario Ministry of Natural Resources.August 16, 2008.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2011.Water management plan: Technical memorandum.Report number WMPSC-2010-12-02a. http://www.grandriver.ca/waterplan/techbrief_wateruse_2011.pdf (accessed November2011).

Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility andadaptive management*antidotes forspurious certitude? Conservation Ecology

3(1): 7.

Hansen, L. J., J. Biringer, J. Hoffman, ed. 2003.Buying time: A user’s manual for building resistance

and resilience to climate change in natural systems.Berlin: WWF Climate Change Program,244 pp.

Hofmann, N., and B. Mitchell. 1995. Evolvingtoward participatory water management: Thepermit to take water program and commercialwater bottling in Ontario. Canadian Water

Resources Journal 20(2): 91�100.

Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental

assessment and management. London, UK: JohnWiley, 377 pp.

Klaassen, J. 2000. A climatological assessment of major

20th century drought years in the Grand River

Basin. Contracted Report for the Grand RiverConservation Authority, Meteorological Serviceof Canada-Ontario-Region, EnvironmentCanada, Downsview, Ontario. InternalMSC-Ontario Region report, ASD-01-1,2001.

Koshida, G., B. Mills, and M. Sanderson. 1999.Adaptation lessons learned (and forgotten) fromthe 1988 and 1998 southern Ontario droughts. InReport from the adaptation learning experiment, ed.I. Burton, M. Kerry, S. Kalhok, and M.Vandierendonck, pp. 23�35. Downsview, ON:Environment Canada, Environmental AdaptationResearch Group.

Kreutzwiser, R., R. de Loe, and B. Benninghoff.1999. Agricultural and rural water allocation in

Ontario. A Report to the Agricultural AdaptationCouncil under the National Soil and WaterConservation Program.

Kreutzwiser, R. D., R. C. de Loe, J. Durely, andC. Priddle. 2004. Water allocation and thepermit to take water program inOntario: Challenges and opportunities.Canadian Water Resources Journal 29(2):135�146.

Lavender, B., J. V. Smith, G. Koshida, and L. D.Mortsch (eds.). 1998. Binational Great Lakes-St.

Lawrence Basin climate change and hydrologic

scenarios report. Downsview, ON: EnvironmentCanada, Environmental Adaptation ResearchGroup, 99 pp.

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 121

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Leadlay, H. J., and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 1999.Rural water supply allocation in Ontario:An evaluation of current policy and practice.Canadian Water Resources Journal 24(1):1�14.

Lemmen, D. S., and F. J. Warren, ed. 2004. Climate

change impacts and adaptation: A Canadian

perspective. 2002. Ottawa, ON:Government of Canada, Climate ChangeImpacts and Adaptation Directorate,pp. 35�50.

Lofgren, B. M., F. H. Quinn, A. H. Clites, R. A.Assel, A. J. Eberhardt, and C. L. Luukkonen.2002. Evaluation of potential impacts on GreatLakes water resources based on climate scenariosof two GCMs. Journal of Great Lakes Research

28(4): 537�554.

Lyons, J. R. 1994. [speech by Assistant Secretary ofAgriculture for Natural Resources and theEnvironment]. In Drought management in a

changing West: New directions for water policy,Portland, Oregon, May 1994. http://www.drought.unl.edu/plan/handbook/risk.pdf(accessed May 2010).

McCaffrey, S. C. 2003. The need for flexibility infreshwater treaty regimes. Natural Resources

Forum 27(2): 156�162.

Milhous, R. T. 2006. Drought and environmentalflows: A few issues abs. In Geological Society of

America Abstracts with Programs, SpecialityMeeting No. 3, 26 pp.

Mortsch, L., H. Hengeveld, M. Lister, B. Lofgren, F.Quinn, M. Slivitzky, and L. Wenger. 2000.Climate change impacts on the hydrology of theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Canadian

Water Resources Journal 25(2): 153�179.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Future climate:

Ontario’s climate in the twenty-first century. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/climate-change/community-adaptation/poster/779 (accessed July2010).

Nelson, J. G., J. Porter, C. Farassoglou, S. Gardiner,C. Guthrie, C. Beck, and C. Lemieux. 2003.The Grand River watershed: A heritage

landscape guide. Heritage LandscapeGuide Series #2. Waterloo, ON: HeritageResources Center, University of Waterloo,81 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2009. Ontario population

projections update. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/#s3a(accessed June 2010).

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources OMNR,Ontario Ministry of the Environment, OntarioMinistry of Agriculture and Food, OntarioMinistry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,Ontario Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunityand Innovation, Association of Municipalitiesof Ontario and Conservation Ontario. 2002.Ontario low water response. Toronto, ON.,39 pp.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment OMOE.2005. Permit to take water (PTTW) manual.Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario,45 pp.

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Transitions towards adaptivemanagement of water facing climate and globalchange. Water Resources Management 21(1):49�62.

Palys, T., and C. Atchison. 2008. Research decisions:

Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Toronto:Thomson Nelson, 465 pp.

Quinn, F. H., and B. Lofgren. 2000. The influence ofpotential greenhouse warming on Great Lakeshydrology, water levels and water management.Preprints, 15 Conference on Hydrology

1: 271�274.

Record Staff. 2001. Low-water affecting local trout:Biologist. Kitchener-Waterloo Record, September,8, B04.

Record Staff. 2002. Water controls not invoked,official says. Kitchener-Waterloo Record,September 26, 2002, B2.

122 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015

Resilience Alliance. 2008. Resilience. http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/resilience(accessed February 2012).

Rubin, H. J., and I. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative

interviewing: The art of hearing data.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,304 pp.

Singleton, R. A., and B. C. Straits. 2005. Approaches

to social research. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Southam, C. F., B. N. Mills, R. J. Moulton, andD. W. Brown. 1999. The potential impact ofclimate change in Ontario’s Grand River Basin:Water supply and demand issues. Canadian Water

Resources Journal 24: 307�330.

Sprague, J. B. 2007. Great wet North? Canada’s mythof water abundance. In Eau Canada: The future of

Canada’s water, ed. K. Bakker, 23�36. Vancouver:UBC Press.

Thompson, A. 2007. Man vs. nature and the newmeaning of drought. Environment Live Science.September 7. http://www.livescience.com/environment/070420_drought_defn.html(accessed August 2010).

Township of East Rockhill. 2000. Chapter 26. §26-403. Code of Ordinances of the Township of EastRockhill. Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Authorityof the Township. http://www.eastrockhilltownship.org/docs/ordinances/2324-026.pdf(accessed October 2011).

Walker, B. H., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking:

Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing

world. Washington, D.C.: Island Press,174 pp.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable

resources. New York: McGraw Hill, 374 pp.

Wilhite, D. A. 1993. Planning for drought: Amethodology. In Drought assessment, management,

and planning: Theory and case studies, ed. D. A.Wilhite, 87�108. Boston: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Wilhite, D. A. 2011. Breaking the hydro-illogicalcycle: Progress or status quo for droughtmanagement in the United States. European

Water 34: 5�18.

Wilhite, D. A., M. J. Hayes, and C. L. Knutson.2005. Drought preparedness planning: Buildinginstitutional capacity. In Drought and water crisis:

Science, technology, and management issues, ed.D. A. Wilhite, 93�136. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.

Yin, R. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,223 pp.

Disch, Kay, and Mortsch 123

2012 Canadian Water Resources Association

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Env

iron

men

t Can

ada

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s / O

ffer

t par

les

Serv

ices

de

bibl

ioth

èque

d'E

nvir

onne

men

t Can

ada]

at 1

3:25

13

Mar

ch 2

015