This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 06 November 2014, At: 18:21Publisher: 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

Enhancing source water protection and watershedmanagement: Lessons from the case of the NewBrunswick Water Classification InitiativeJulia Bairda, Ryan Plummerab, Samantha Morrisa, Simon Mitchellc & Kaitlyn Rathwellda Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St.Catharines, ON, Canada, L2S 3A1b Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm Swedenc Meduxnekeag River Association, Inc., 109 Regent St, Unit 10, Woodstock, NB, Canada, E7M2N6d Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West,Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3G1Published online: 14 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Julia Baird, Ryan Plummer, Samantha Morris, Simon Mitchell & Kaitlyn Rathwell (2014) Enhancingsource water protection and watershed management: Lessons from the case of the New Brunswick Water ClassificationInitiative, Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 39:1, 49-62, DOI:10.1080/07011784.2013.872872

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2013.872872

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

Enhancing source water protection and watershed management: Lessons from the case of theNew Brunswick Water Classification Initiative

Julia Bairda*, Ryan Plummera,b, Samantha Morrisa, Simon Mitchellc and Kaitlyn Rathwelld

aEnvironmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, ON, Canada, L2S 3A1;bStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden; cMeduxnekeag River Association, Inc., 109Regent St, Unit 10, Woodstock, NB, Canada, E7M 2N6; dEnvironment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 UniversityAvenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3G1

(Received 21 June 2013; accepted 30 November 2013)

Source water protection varies by locale, and approaches and experiences are accumulating in response to concernsabout drinking water safety. Learning lessons and transferring them from experiences elsewhere is a well-establishedpractice for addressing water governance challenges. In response to the need to enhance source water protection policiesand initiatives and a growing interest in modes of governance in which government and non-government actors collabo-rate, this research investigated and derived lessons from the Water Classification Initiative in New Brunswick, Canada.The research specifically aimed to describe the development of the initiative, analyze structural relationships amongactors involved in the initiative and describe the successes and challenges experienced. Investigation of the Water Classi-fication Initiative illustrates how key aspects of source water protection identified in the literature (e.g. watershed as afocal scale, collaborative approaches, incorporation of science and local knowledge) can be incorporated into policy,how capacity may be built or constrained in the context of government-led collaborative approaches, and how social net-work analysis offers a powerful tool to understand interactions among those involved in a policy process. Learning fromthese insights offers an opportunity to advance the development of new approaches as well as to enhance existing sourcewater protection policies.

La protection de l’eau de source varie selon la localité, et les approches et les expériences en réponse aux soucis quant àla sécurité de l’eau potable accumulent. Apprendre les leçons et les transférer des expériences ailleurs est une pratiquebien établie pour aborder des défis de la gouvernance de l’eau. En réponse au besoin d’améliorer les politiques et les ini-tiatives de la protection de l’eau de source et à un intérêt croissant pour les modes de gouvernance dans lesquels le gou-vernement et les acteurs non gouvernementaux collaborent, cette recherche a examiné et a tiré des leçons de l’Initiativede classification des eaux au Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada. La recherche a visé spécifiquement à décrire le développe-ment de l’Initiative, à analyser les relations structurelles entre les acteurs qui participent à l’Initiative et à décrire lessuccès obtenus et les défis rencontrés. L’enquête sur l’Initiative de classification des eaux illustre comment : les aspectsclés de la protection de l’eau de source identifiés dans la littérature (ex. le bassin versant comme une échelle focale, desapproches collaboratives, l’incorporation de la science et les connaissances locales) peuvent être incorporés dans la poli-tique; la capacité puisse être développée ou contrainte au contexte des approches collaboratives dirigées par le gouverne-ment, et l’analyse du réseautage social offre un instrument puissant pour comprendre les interactions entre ceux quiparticipent dans un processus politique. Apprendre de ces aperçus offre une occasion d’avancer le développement denouvelles approches aussi bien que d’améliorer les politiques de la protection de l’eau de source existantes.

Introduction

Protecting source waters is imperative for humans andecosystems. Source waters encompass all surface andground resources from which present or future drinkingwater originates (O’Connor 2002; Ivey et al. 2006a;Simms et al. 2010). The emphasis on safe drinking wateris expected as it is a Millennium Development Goal(MDG). Although the recent achievement of providingsafe drinking water to over 88% of the world’s populationis impressive, millions of people still lack access andkeeping drinking water safe remains an important and sub-stantive challenge (UNICEF/World Health Organization

2012). Safeguarding drinking water requires the establish-ment of multiple barriers (source water protection, treat-ment, distribution, monitoring, contingency response) andthe protection of source waters offers a critical initialimpediment that reduces risks and costs effectively(O’Connor 2002; Hrudey and Hrudey 2004; Hrudey et al.2006; Ivey et al. 2006a; Plummer et al. 2010). Accordingto the World Health Organization (1996), “source protec-tion is almost invariably the best method of ensuring safedrinking-water and is to be preferred to treating a contami-nated water supply to render it suitable for consumption.”

*Corresponding author. Email: jbaird@brocku.ca

© 2014 Canadian Water Resources Association

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 2014Vol. 39, No. 1, 49–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2013.872872

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Despite consensus on its importance and much suc-cess in the provisioning of safe drinking water, sourcewater protection remains a formidable challenge for sev-eral reasons: nonpoint sources of water pollution in par-ticular persist and have defied solution (Mandelker 1989;Caruso 2000; United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) 2012); integration is required betweenplanning the uses of land and water (National ResearchCouncil 2000; FitzGibbon and Plummer 2004; Plummeret al. 2011); competing interests are held by diversestakeholders (National Research Council 2000; Simmset al. 2010), and capacities of institutional arrangementsand governance approaches vary considerably (Iveyet al. 2006a, 2006b; Timmer et al. 2007; Patrick 2009;Plummer et al. 2010; Simms et al. 2010). Source waterprotection is broadly understood and generally defined as“watershed and aquifer management for the protection ofdrinking water supplies and is operationalized throughland-use management programs with the specific goal ofprotecting drinking water sources against contamination”(Patrick 2009, 209).

As a form of environmental decision-making influ-enced by contextual social and biophysical processes, theapproaches used for source water protection vary bylocale (Ivey et al. 2006b; Patrick 2008; Simpson and deLoë 2011). Experiences with source water protection pol-icies and initiatives are accumulating quickly in NorthAmerica due to persistent and pressing concerns aboutdrinking water safety. For example, the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq) in the United States providesregulatory structure for water pollution broadly and iscentral to the efforts by the USEPA concerning sourcewater protection specifically (USEPA 2012). The USEPA(1991, 1993) early on developed a five-step process forwellhead protection that is now a well-documentedtemplate in the source water protection literature (Younget al. 2009). The New York City Watershed Memoran-dum of Agreement is a novel example of effectivesource water protection utilizing a suite of regulatoryand non-regulatory mechanisms with a watershed focus(National Research Council 2000; Pires 2004).

In Canada, attention to drinking water safety hasbeen thrust into the public consciousness nationwide bychronic drinking water issues in First Nations communi-ties as well as judicial inquires associated with contami-nated water supplies in North Battleford, Saskatchewan(Laing 2002) and Walkerton, Ontario (O’Connor 2002).Research by FitzGibbon and Plummer (2004) and Simmset al. (2010) captures the diversity of source waterprotection initiatives, tools and approaches acrossCanada. Prompted by the tragic events of Walkerton,where seven people perished, the province of Ontariohas embarked upon “a radically new approach to gover-nance for drinking source water protection” (Plummeret al. 2011, 3). The Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) and

the Clean Water Act (2006) were established to reflectthe multi-barrier approach, with the latter setting forth aprovince-wide watershed-scale planning process. Ontar-io’s approach to source water protection is thus man-dated by the government and operationalized throughregional multi-stakeholder “source protection commit-tees” tasked with assessing the threats to source waterand creating a plan to protect drinking water sources.New Brunswick’s Water Classification Initiative (WCI) isanother example of government-mandated source waterprotection, with the Water Classification Regulation(2002) establishing classifications for surface waters at awatershed scale (New Brunswick Department ofEnvironment and Local Government (NB DELG) 2002a)and encouraging an ongoing watershed-based manage-ment approach.

Several of the above examples of source waterprotection serve also to illustrate the increasing interest inand use of collaborative approaches in watershed-basednatural resources management (Selin and Chavez 1995;Conley and Moote 2003; Innes and Booher 2010). Thereare important benefits from collaborative planningapproaches, including but not limited to increased legiti-macy of decision-making, increased knowledge andresource sharing, reduced conflict and building of socialcapital (Conley and Moote 2003; Imperial 2005;Trachtenberg and Focht 2005); however, it is important tonote that these approaches also have potential weaknesses(e.g. political derailment, lack of skills to undertake theprocess) (Wollondeck and Yaffee 2000; Walker andHurley 2004) and do not constitute a panacea for sourcewater protection.

Learning lessons from experiences elsewhere is awell-established practice for addressing water governancechallenges, such as source water protection, and can beexpedited through policy transfer (Swainson and de Loë2010, 2011). Largely located in political science and inter-national development scholarship, several labels (e.g.policy transfer, emulation, lesson drawing) are used tobroadly refer to “a process in which knowledge about pol-icies, administrative arrangements, institutions etc. in onetime and/or place is used in the development of policies,administrative arrangements and institutions in anothertime and/or place” (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996, 344).Investigations of source water protection have endeav-oured to identify facilitating and constraining factors (deLoë et al. 2005; Ivey et al. 2006a; Patrick 2008; Patricket al. 2008), showcase the range of approaches and initia-tives to inform others (FitzGibbon and Plummer 2004;Simms et al. 2010), and identify lessons from specificexperiences (e.g. National Research Council 2000;Timmer et al. 2007; Young et al. 2009; Benson et al.2012). From their specific work with policy transfer andwater governance, Swainson and de Loë (2010) concludethat

50 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

[T]he opportunity to learn from water policy experimentsand experiences in other jurisdictions, at multiple scalesand levels of governance, has never been greater. How-ever realizing the benefits of policy transfer will requirethat practitioners and policy makers understand the fac-tors that shape transferability, and develop the capacityto utilize lessons appropriately in their own contexts.

In response to the need to learn from water policyexperiments and enhance source water protection policiesand initiatives in other jurisdictions, this research investi-gates the WCI in New Brunswick, Canada. The researchspecifically aims to (1) describe the development of thepolicy initiative, (2) illustrate and analyze the structuralrelationships among the government and non-governmentactors, and (3) identify successes and challenges experi-enced by the actors involved. The WCI was selectedbecause it offers a longstanding policy initiative forsource water protection on a watershed basis and at aprovincial scale and also illustrates the growing interestin new modes of water governance in which governmentand non-government actors collaborate to solve watermanagement challenges.

Methods

The case study method was selected to investigate theNew Brunswick WCI. Yin (2009, 2) explains that thecase study is an appropriate research design “when con-ducting exploratory research focusing on a contemporaryphenomenon within a real life context especially whenthe boundaries between phenomenon and context are notclearly evident and over which the investigator has littleor no control.” While a variety of case study types exist,the intent in this research was to conduct a collectivecase study. Stake (1995, 3) explains that, in collectivecase studies, “each case study is instrumental … butthere will be important coordination between the individ-ual studies.” The New Brunswick WCI was thereforeselected because it offers a longstanding policy initiativefor source water protection (the “case”) on a watershedbasis (a collection of watershed organizations involvedin the initiative) and at a provincial scale. It also illus-trates the growing interest in new modes of water gover-nance, in which government and non-government actorscollaborate to solve a problem or take advantage of anopportunity (Rogers and Hall 2003) and provides anopportunity to investigate a process that has been com-pleted as a source for lesson-drawing for other sourcewater protection processes currently underway and thosebeing planned or conceptualized.

While the New Brunswick WCI was the main unit ofanalysis, a nested case study structure was used to under-take the research. This approach was devised to be con-gruent with the organization of the WCI on a watershedbasis, and the objectives of the research. A list of the

watersheds in New Brunswick where the WCI wasbeing, or had been, initiated was provided by the NBDELG. Twenty-four watersheds were identified on thislist and, of those, 19 had a watershed organization asso-ciated with them. All 19 of these watershed organiza-tions were contacted and invited to participate, and 15agreed, for a response rate of 79%. While the entire pop-ulation (n = 25) did not participate, the participation ratewas high among those watersheds where the WCI pro-cess had been completed. These 15 watersheds formedthe sub-units of analysis within the New BrunswickWCI.

Multiple techniques were employed to collect andanalyze data relating to the case: documents and inter-views provided the data for the study, and content analy-sis and social network analysis served as the analyticaltechniques. The methods described below are presentedby data source.

Documents provided a first source of data. Searchesconducted for WCI documents regarding each specificwatershed resulted in 16 reports; 13 retrieved from inter-net searches, and three retrieved from the NB DELG.Among these, the 15 provisional water classification doc-uments were particularly informative because they werecreated by each watershed organization during the WCIprocess. These documents describe the watershed, theWCI process including all monitoring and data collectionefforts, and the water classifications selected for eachwater body within the watershed, and, in some instances,also offer a description of an action plan to maintain orimprove water quality. The provisional water classifica-tion documents were reviewed using a coding key tocapture the timeframe in which the water classificationwas completed, the activities undertaken in order to clas-sify water bodies and the post-classification action planactivities proposed.

Semi-structured interviews provided the second andmain source of data. Participant identification began withbackground searches and interviews with NB DELGemployees with detailed knowledge of the WCI to iden-tify key contacts in participating watersheds. The keycontacts identified were contacted by researchers. Incases where those contacted felt someone else was bettersuited to respond, referrals were made and researcherscontacted the alternative contacts. One representative ofeach watershed organization involved in the study andtwo employees from the NB DELG (n = 17) participatedin semi-structured interviews during the month of June2011. The first part of the semi-structured interviewsincluded questions focused on the history and process ofthe WCI (for the NB DELG respondents only), thewatershed organization (where applicable), and the net-work of people and organizations they interacted withinspecifically for exchanging knowledge and/or collabora-tion for the purposes of the WCI, with separate free

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

recall questions asked for each interaction type. Knowl-edge exchange was defined as sharing of information orconsulting for an opinion, while the definition of collab-oration required “working together on a project/task witha shared goal and reciprocal relationship.” The NBDELG employees and watershed organization representa-tives were asked to identify as many individuals, organi-zations, agencies, departments and businesses they couldthink of that fit within one or both reasons for interac-tion. Data from the first part of the semi-structured inter-view were used for social network analysis. Socialnetwork analysis is a useful tool for understanding andilluminating the structure and actors involved in interac-tions, and provides insights into who was involved inthe WCI and the nature of their involvement. An egonetwork approach was employed for this study; that is,respondents were asked to provide information about allof the actors with whom their watershed organizationinteracted for the purpose of the WCI. However, due tothe high response rate, a network analysis of thoseorganizations involved in the WCI from 2002–2011 waspossible with the acknowledgement that a few watershedorganizations (four) did not participate.

Responses regarding interactions with others forknowledge exchange and/or collaboration were enteredinto MS Excel using a matrix structure and a binary codethat indicated an interaction (“1”) or no interaction (“0”)between actors. The resulting matrices were importedinto social network analysis software, Ucinet 6 (AnalyticTechnologies, Inc.), where the structure of each network(knowledge exchange and collaboration) was analyzed.The following analyses were undertaken: the size anddiversity of the network of each respondent organizationfor the purpose of understanding how many and withwhat types of other actors the watershed organizationsand the NB DELG interacted; the structure of the net-work of respondent organizations to understand the inter-actions (including direction) among organizationsactively involved in the water classification process, andthe roles of individual organizations within the networks(particularly those in positions of influence) to under-stand which actors may be considered as central, orinfluential, in the WCI process. Finally, an analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify statisticallysignificant differences in network size among two dis-tinct types of watershed organizations: those that werecreated expressly for the purpose of the WCI and thosethat existed prior to the initiative. For a visual assess-ment of the network data, Netdraw 2 (Analytic Technol-ogies, Inc.) was used. A follow-up email was sent to allrespondents with their own network data only (i.e., their“ego” network) to ensure the network data collected wasaccurate.

Questions in the second portion of the interview wereasked only of watershed organizations and focused on

the resources used and activities undertaken by eachwatershed organization as a result of the WCI as well asthe benefits and challenges of the WCI. Data from thesequestions was recorded by the interviewer and analyzedusing content analysis (Krippendorff 2004). Responsesrecorded by the interviewer (and translated to Englishwhen provided in French) were coded in two rounds: thefirst was a round of inductive, open coding to identifythemes present in responses; the second was a round ofaxial coding that fit responses within emergent themesfrom round one and refined themes. A single coder com-pleted this work and thus intercoder reliability was not aconcern. Tabulations of the number of occurrences ofeach theme were conducted and absolute frequencies arepresented (Krippendorff 2004). Illustrative quotationsfrom responses for each theme were identified and tran-scribed (and translated to English when in French) fromaudio recordings of these interviews to ensure accuracy.

Findings

Development and experience with the WaterClassification Initiative in New Brunswick

The requirements for drinking water quality in NewBrunswick follow the Drinking Water Quality Guidelinesby Health Canada (2012). The New Brunswick CleanWater Act (1989) was established to protect the quality ofdrinking water (NB Government 1989) and to provide aframework for its management in the province (NB DELGinterview). Several regulations were put in place in rela-tion to land use and drinking water quality, including:Water Well, Watercourse and Wetland Alteration, Pro-tected Area Exemption, Fees for Industrial Approvals,Potable Water, Wellfield Protection Area DesignationOrder and the Watershed Protection Area DesignationOrder. The Water Classification Regulation (2002) com-plements these land use-based regulations (NB DELGinterview). It was developed through a multi-jurisdictionalreview of water classification programs and is most clo-sely modeled after Maine’s water classification structurefor rivers, streams and lakes (Barbour et al. 2000). TheNB DELG refined the approach through a series of pilottests in selected watersheds throughout the 1990s.

The Water Classification Regulation established waterquality classes, associated water quality standards, andadministrative processes and requirements (NB DELG2002a). The purpose of the regulation was to “set goalsfor surface water quality and promote management ofwater on a watershed basis” (NB DELG 2002a, 1). It setout a five-step process, the WCI, through which waterbodies were to be classified. While the Water Classifica-tion Regulation provided the overarching regulatoryframework for classifying water bodies, the WCI is theprocess by which the watershed organizations undertookthe classification. First, stakeholders were identified and

52 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

involved. Second, water quality information was gath-ered by the stakeholders. Third, land and water use infor-mation was assembled. Stakeholders, using informationgathered in steps two and three, then classified waterbodies within the watershed according to six availableclassifications that ranged from “outstanding naturalwaters” to “acceptable water quality” (Table 1). Eachclassification was based on standards dictating suitableuses, prohibited activities and standards for aquatic com-munities, dissolved oxygen, bacteria and trophic status(see Table 1) (NB DELG 2002a). The classificationcould reflect the current condition of the water body or aset water quality goal. Once classified, the final step inthe stakeholder process was to create and implement anaction plan to sustain or achieve the water quality goals.

The NB DELG approached the WCI from awatershed basis and sought collaboration with watershedorganizations (NB DELG 2002b). In some situations,watershed organizations already existed, and they tookon water classification. In instances where non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) existed but did not strictlyfocus on the watershed scale, an opportunity was pre-sented to adjust their mandate and work on the WCI. Inthe remaining watersheds where no appropriate organiza-tion existed, the NB DELG identified and convenedstakeholders using the Outreach and Partnership Initia-tive for the purpose of working through the WCI pro-cess. Throughout development and implementation itwas explicit that “public involvement is a cornerstone ofthe Water Classification Regulation” (NB DELG2002b, 1). Although government-mandated like Ontario’ssource water protection, the process and context of theWCI were very different.

A key milestone for each watershed organizationinvolved in the WCI process was the development of aprovisional water classification document. The provi-sional water classification document describes in detailthe procedures followed and actions taken in relation toclassifying water bodies within the watershed. Allwatershed organizations agreeing to participate in theresearch completed a provisional water classification doc-ument and most were submitted between 2000 and 2005.The average amount of time reported to complete theprocess and submit the provisional classification docu-ment was 2.5 years. Seven watershed organizationselected to revisit their water classification, and all whodid increased the classification of at least some of thewater bodies within their watershed (e.g. classificationwas changed from “B” to “A”).

Analysis of the provisional documents illuminates therange of techniques and degrees of stakeholder involve-ment within the WCI. Ways in which the watershedorganizations involved stakeholders included: hostinggeneral meetings and open houses, sending letters out tothe community, posting newsletters, gathering informa-

tion from the public during meetings and includingstakeholder input in the action planning. More collabora-tive engagement of stakeholders identified by watershedorganizations included organizing volunteer programs tomonitor the water quality in their watershed, incorporat-ing stakeholder feedback into the classifications, havingstakeholder approve action plans and actively recruitingvolunteers to assist with implementation. Stakeholdersengaged by watershed organizations included individuals,municipal governments, public and private organizations,government agencies and others.

Action plans, as part of the provisional water classifi-cation documents, were not required but were nonethe-less drafted by 12 of the 15 watershed organizations thatparticipated in the study. Action plans included ecologi-cal management items such as riparian restoration (Ken-nebecasis Watershed Restoration Committee) andimproved forestry practices (Shediac Bay WatershedAssociation), and social and educational items such asefforts to promote sharing of information and ongoingcollaboration (Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance), and com-munity newsletters and volunteer events (HammondRiver Angling Association). The watershed organizationsvaried in their methods for finalizing and implementingthe plans. Nine indicated they had recruited volunteers tohelp implement the action plans, and 10 stated that theyhad implemented their plan.

Although the water classifications developed wereintended to gain regulatory stature, none of the submis-sions to the NB DELG had been adopted as enforceablewater quality standards and interviewees reported thatthe status of the water classifications was unknown atthe time the interviews were conducted. This issueappeared to be at the forefront of many watershed orga-nization representatives in a 2011 workshop where indi-viduals expressed frustrations about status of the WCI(Baird et al. 2011). According to a recent news report atthe time of writing, the status of the WCI remains “underreview” (Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC)2013b).

The structural relationships among Water ClassificationImitative actors

As watershed organizations worked through the WCIprocess, they drew upon other stakeholders to obtaininformation and for collaboration. The following sectionreports the structures of those connections and the rolesof specific actors within the networks of knowledgeexchange and collaboration during this time. The struc-ture of the entire network of both types is that of a star-type graph, where few actors are highly connected in thecentre of the graph, but the majority of the actors are sit-uated in the periphery and are highly disconnected(Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table

1.Levelsof

water

classificatio

n(N

BDELG

2002

a,10–11).

Class

Suitab

leuses

Aquatic

community

stan

dards

Dissolved

oxyg

enstan

dards

Bacteriastan

dards

Standardsfrom

trop

hic

status(lak

es,pon

dsan

dim

pou

ndments

only)

Prohibited

activities

O(O

utstanding

natural

waters)

habitatforaquatic

life;

prim

aryand

second

arycontact

activ

ity;other

approp

riateuses

theaquatic

lifeshallbe

asnaturally

occurring

theconcentrationof

dissolvedox

ygen

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

thefaecal

coliform

organism

sandE.coli

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

releaseof

acontam

inant;

creatio

nof

anew

mixing

zone;releaseof

acontam

inantinto

amixingzone;sign

ificant

with

draw

als

AP (D

esignated

drinking

water

supp

lies)

raw

drinking

water

(treated

orun

treated);uses

perm

itted

under

theWatershed

Protected

Area

Designa

tionOrder

(WPA

DO)

theaquatic

lifeshallbe

asnaturally

occurring

theconcentrationof

dissolvedox

ygen

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

E.colishallbe

asnaturally

occurring;

the

totalcoliform

organism

sshallbe

asnaturally

occurring

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

seetheWatershed

Protected

Area

Designa

tionOrder

AL(Lakes

not

classified

asO

orAP)

habitatforaquatic

life;

prim

aryand

second

arycontact

activ

ity(see

glossary);other

approp

riateuses

theaquatic

lifeshallbe

asnaturally

occurring

forcold

water

species:>

9.5pp

m(early

lifestages)

and>6.5pp

m(other

life

stages);forwarm

water

species:>6.0pp

m(early

lifestages)and>5.0

(other

lifestages);for

estuarinewaters:>80

%saturatio

n

thefaecal

coliform

organism

sandE.coli

shallbe

asnaturally

occurring

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

stable

ornaturally

changing

;thewater

shall

befree

ofalgaebloo

ms

that

impairuseas

habitat

foraquatic

life,

orusefor

prim

aryor

second

ary

contactactiv

ity

direct

dischargeof

acontam

inantthat

isno

tbeingreleased,or

any

increase

inthevo

lumeor

concentrationof

acontam

inantthat

isbeing

directly

discharged,on

thedate

ofcommencementof

the

Regulation;

creatio

nof

anew

mixingzone.

A(Excellent

water

quality

)

ashabitatfor

aquatic

life;

prim

aryand

second

arycontact

activ

ity;otheruses

that

will

not

preventthe

standardsfrom

beingmet

theaquatic

lifeshallbe

asnaturally

occurring

forcold

water

species:≥

9.5pp

m(early

lifestages)

and≥6.5pp

m(other

life

stages);forwarm-w

ater

species:≥6.0pp

m(early

lifestages)and≥5.0

(other

lifestages);≥80

%of

saturatio

nin

estuarine

waters

E.colishallbe

asnaturally

occurring

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

stable

ornaturally

changing

;thewater

shall

befree

ofalgaebloo

ms

that

impairuseas

habitat

foraquatic

life,

orusefor

prim

aryor

second

ary

contactactiv

ity

creatio

nof

anew

mixing

zone;releaseof

acontam

inantinto

amixingzone

B(G

oodwater

quality

)as

habitatfor

aquatic

life;

prim

aryand

second

arycontact

activ

ity;otheruses

that

will

not

preventthe

releases

shallno

tcause

adverseim

pact

tothe

aquatic

commun

ityin

that

thereceivingwater

shall

beof

sufficientqu

ality

tosupp

ortallindigeno

usaquatic

specieswith

out

forcold

water

species:≥

9.5pp

m(early

lifestages)

and≥6.5pp

m(other

life

stages);forwarm-w

ater

species:≥6.0pp

m(early

lifestages)and≥5.0

(other

lifestages);≥80

%

thefaecal

coliform

organism

sshallbe

less

than

14per10

0mLfor

estuarieswith

identified

shellfish

beds,and

E.colishallbe

less

than

200per10

0mLforall

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

stable

ornaturally

changing

;thewater

shall

befree

ofalgaebloo

ms

that

impairuseas

habitat

foraquatic

life,

orusefor

(Con

tinued)

54 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Knowledge exchange

Most watershed organizations exchanged knowledgewith a range of actors during the WCI process. The aver-age size of a single watershed organization “ego net-work,” or the actors directly connected to a singlewatershed organization, was 16.5 actors. In some cases,watershed organizations accessed knowledge from com-monly-used sources (indicated by those grey nodes inthe centre of the social network diagram in Figure 1).These sources include several government departments,NGOs, and educational institutions. In many cases, how-ever, watershed organizations relied upon several uniquesources of knowledge not accessed by other watershedorganizations, as is clear from the large number of nodesconnected to a single watershed organization in Figure 1.Often, these sources were local or held information ofspecial interest to a particular watershed; for example,local citizens, media and industry were often identified.

Focusing specifically on the respondents (watershedorganizations and the NB DELG) (Figure 2), structuresof communication during the WCI process become clear.Centralization of the network was 93%; this measureindicates unevenness in connections among actors in thenetwork where 100% indicates a single central actor and0% indicates an identical number of connections amongall actors. The knowledge exchange network exhibited ahighly centralized structure, with the most central actorsbeing the NB DELG, identified by all watershed organi-zations, and the watershed organizations still engaged inthe WCI process, who reported exchanging knowledgewith all respondents. Although the watershed organiza-tions exchanged knowledge with several sources outsidethe respondent network, there was a low level of connec-tivity among watershed organizations (Figure 2), and allbut two ties among watershed organizations were notreciprocal. It is interesting to note that the NB DELGheld a position of considerable power in terms of theknowledge exchange network structure during the WCIprocess, connecting otherwise disconnected watershedorganizations. The other central actor in the network, theMiramichi River Environmental Assessment Committee,engaged in the WCI process much later and was able todraw on knowledge and experiences from others; thus, itheld a unique position and advantage in the network,albeit one of less power than the NB DELG.

Collaboration

The collaboration network was substantially smaller withfewer connections among actors in the network. The aver-age ego network for watershed organizations was eightnodes, approximately half the size of the knowledgeexchange network. This is not surprising as a greater effortis required to meet the conditions for collaboration thanfor knowledge exchange. Collaborations occurred moreT

able

1.(Con

tinued).

Class

Suitab

leuses

Aquatic

community

stan

dards

Dissolved

oxyg

enstan

dards

Bacteriastan

dards

Standardsfrom

trop

hic

status(lak

es,pon

dsan

dim

pou

ndments

only)

Prohibited

activities

standardsfrom

beingmet

detrim

entalchangesto

resident

biolog

ical

commun

ity

ofsaturatio

nin

estuarine

waters

otherwatercourses

(geometricmeanof

aminim

umof

five

samples

ina30

-day

period

)

prim

aryor

second

ary

contactactiv

ity

C(A

cceptable

water

quality

)

ashabitatfor

aquatic

life;

second

arycontact

activ

ity;otheruses

that

will

not

preventthe

standardsfrom

beingmet

releases

that

may

cause

somechangesto

the

aquatic

commun

ityare

perm

itted

ifthereceiving

water

isof

sufficient

quality

tosupp

ort

indigeno

usfish

species

andmaintainthestructure

andfunctio

nof

the

resident

biolog

ical

commun

itydespite

the

releases

forcold

water

species:≥

9.5pp

m(early

lifestages)

and≥6.5pp

m(other

life

stages);forwarm-w

ater

species:≥6.0pp

m(early

lifestages)and≥5.0

(other

lifestages);≥80

%of

saturatio

nin

estuarine

waters

thefaecal

coliform

organism

sshallbe

less

than

14per10

0mLfor

estuarieswith

identifi

edshellfish

beds,and

E.colishallbe

less

than

400per10

0mLforall

otherwatercourses

(geometricmeanof

aminim

umof

5samples

ina30

-day

period

)

thetrop

hicstatus

shallbe

stable

ornaturally

changing

;thewater

shall

befree

ofalgaebloo

ms

that

impairuseas

habitat

foraquatic

life,

orusefor

prim

aryor

second

ary

contactactiv

ity

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

often with educational institutions, government depart-ments and NGOs, but the network still demonstrated con-siderable diversity with the public, industry and othergroups represented in several ego networks.

The respondent network exhibited some surprisingstructural qualities (Figure 3). Each watershed organiza-tion identified the NB DELG as a collaborator; however,

the NB DELG did not report collaborations with thewatershed organizations. As a result, the NB DELG wasa highly central actor in the network without acknowl-edging that central role. Also surprising was the lack ofcollaboration among watershed organizations. While theknowledge exchange network reported some connectionsamong watershed organizations, those connections did

Figure 1. Knowledge exchange network. Black nodes indicate watershed organizations; the white node indicates the New Bruns-wick Department of the Environment and Local Government (NB DELG); grey nodes indicate non-respondents. Node size indicatesscale of organization from local to international.

Figure 2. Respondents’ knowledge exchange network. Black nodes indicate watershed organizations; the white node indicates theNew Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government (NB DELG).

56 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

not constitute collaborative ties. Similar to the knowl-edge exchange network, the Miramichi watershed organi-zation still engaged in the WCI process regarded allconnections with other watershed organizations as col-laborative and, due to the difference in time between thecompletion of the provisioning documents by others,none of them identified collaborative ties with thiswatershed organization.

Ego networks

The ego networks of watershed organizations werecompared using ANOVA between those that existedprior to the WCI (n = 7) and those that were created forthe purpose of working through the WCI process(n = 7). The Miramichi River Environmental AssessmentCommittee ego network was not included in the analysisas they were still engaged in the WCI process during thestudy. The mean ego network size for the knowledgeexchange and collaboration networks was not signifi-cantly different between these two watershed organiza-tion types (p = 0.89 and p = 0.51, respectively).

Discussion of the social network findings

The social network analysis highlighted the multi-stakeholder approach the NB DELG promoted for the WCI.The analysis usefully reveals how the structure of thenetworks and the attributes of the actors connected towatershed organizations built capacity in two main waysduring the WCI process. First, large networks were fos-tered for the purpose of working through the WCIprocess. These networks included linkages among scalesand sectors. Cross-scale linkages have been promoted as“solutions to sustainability of community-based manage-

ment” (Adger et al. 2005). The inclusion of diverseactors in the WCI brings local and expert knowledgetogether. Although local knowledge may have played asubordinate role in the WCI process (van Tol et al. inpress), the cross-scale and cross-sector linkages increasethe capacity of watershed organizations through the jointgeneration of local technical knowledge, identified aslacking in other source water protection initiatives (Iveyet al. 2006b). Second, the collaboration network showeda strong multi-sector, multi-scale dimension to the WCIfor each watershed organization. Despite the range ofcontextual differences (e.g. industrial, economic, devel-opmental, environmental and social) that can hinderinter-organizational collaboration and the process moregenerally (Brummel et al. 2012), all of the watershedorganizations that participated in the study successfulcompleted the WCI process and classified the waterbodies within their jurisdiction.

The social network analysis also reveals some puz-zling, neutral and less positive outcomes. A puzzlingresult was a lack of reciprocity among respondents(watershed organization representatives and the NBDELG) in the collaboration network. Collaborative tieswere indicated where two actors worked together toward acommon goal – a definition that is explicitly reciprocal.However, the NB DELG did not acknowledge collaborat-ing with any watershed organizations, while everywatershed organization indicated a collaborative link tothe DELG. Some insight into why this may have occurredmay be gained from the language used by the DELG inthe WCI guidance documents provided to watershed orga-nizations. The documents describe a “partnership”between government and watershed organizations, andfocus on the watershed organizations as the administrative

Figure 3. Respondent collaboration network. Black nodes indicate watershed organizations; the white node indicates the NewBrunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government (NB DELG).

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

unit for undertaking the task (NB DELG 2002b). A pro-vincial government presentation at a workshop held inNew Brunswick to disseminate the results of this studydescribed the partnership largely in terms of one-wayinformation flows from watershed organizations to thegovernment (Baird et al. 2011). Watershed organizations,conversely, reported that they collaborated with the pro-vincial agency. This disparate view of the process mayhave had impacts on the outcomes and ongoing relation-ship between watershed organizations and the DELG.Leach (2006) highlights the critical importance of trans-parency in the relationship between public agencies andother stakeholders involved in collaborative management,and Brummel et al. (2012) caution that mandated collabo-rative stakeholder organizations may dissolve after thespecified task is complete, reducing the capacity for long-term management.

Successes and challenges of the Water ClassificationInitiative

Interviewees were asked to reflect upon the successesand challenges of the WCI. The results presented in thissection give voice to the participants and reflect thethemes that emerged from the qualitative analysis.

Successes

Respondents to the interviews identified several benefitsand successes that came about because of the WCI pro-cess. The first theme or category addressed the buildingof knowledge and collection of baseline data. Tenrespondents described how the WCI helped theirwatershed organisation build knowledge of theirwatershed, in terms of both quality and quantity of infor-mation. Watershed organization respondents stated thatthe WCI increased their water quality monitoring capac-ity, and gave them the opportunity to add water qualityinformation to their database:

For us it’s not a dead end, because we are using thatdocument as a go forward tool anyway, we’re still usingit and we’re still owning it. Just because the regulationhasn’t been put into place doesn’t mean that you can’tuse the water quality data you’ve collected and try tomaintain and contain and monitor on our own accordthat data and water quality. It’s been a benefit in thatway in which we’ve now gained a much greaterunderstanding of water quality, not just habitat, but waterquality within that habitat, within our watershed. [Be]cause we had already gone through a full, an extensivehabitat assessment of our watershed, but we didn’t havewater quality data, so now we’ve been able to [assess]the quality … to have a good understanding of ourwatershed. (Respondent from Kennebecasis WatershedRestoration Committee)

In particular, the development of a baseline set ofdata for the watersheds was often mentioned (n = 8) as avaluable benefit of the WCI. For example, a respondentfrom the Société D’aménagement de la Rivière de Mad-awaska et du Lac Témiscouata stated, “The first thing isthe awareness of the situation of their water. The qualityof the water was one thing … it really validated thatdimension there” (translated from French).

A second theme concerned the increased capacity ofwatershed organizations. More than half of the respon-dents (n = 8) expressed that one of the big successes ofthe WCI was that it helped to create capacity for furtherwork within their watersheds. The WCI was identified tobuild capacity by enabling the creation of watershed or-ganisations where there were none previously. Wherewatershed organisations did exist, watershed organizationrespondents identified that the WCI was a catalyst forthe maturation of the watershed organization (respondentfrom the Meduxnekeag River Association) and focusedthe efforts of the watershed organization (respondentfrom the Nashwaak Watershed Association).

The provisional water classification documents, andthe action plans that arose from the WCI process, alsoserved as a starting point, or catalyst, for future actionsfor several respondents (n = 6). Each watershed organi-zation respondent who identified increased capacity as abenefit of the WCI also noted the development andavailability of baseline data for each watershed, andthese benefits are highly connected: for example, arespondent from the Meduxnekeag River Association sta-ted, “[The WCI] is a catalyst for other things … [it pro-vided an] opportunity to increase capacity and gain abetter quantitative understanding of the watershed”; anda respondent from L’Association des Bassins Versants dela Grande et Petite Rivière Tracadie remarked, “[t]hesuccesses, well [the provisional water classification docu-ment] left us, it went to the organization, but we still usethe classification to continue to put the action plans inplace each year” (translated from French).

A government-mandated collaborative process can besuccessful and persist. In the New Brunswick WCI,many of the watershed organizations tasked with classi-fying waters within their watershed boundaries recog-nized the value in the work they undertook. Althoughthe water classifications are not yet legally recognized,several watershed organizations continued to engage inwatershed-based monitoring and protection/restorationactivities. In creating watershed organizations, or re-pur-posing existing associations, and providing them withresources to engage in the WCI, the NB DELG createdcapacity – through knowledge generation and synthesis –for watershed-based action within the province (Iveyet al. 2006b).

58 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Challenges

Respondents also identified challenges that arose duringtheir experience with the WCI process. Themes thatemerged strongly from the qualitative analysis of inter-view transcripts include a lack of information andmomentum, concerns about capacity (including funding)and lack of enforceable regulations.

Several watershed organization respondents (n = 9)stated that the provincial government was not forthcom-ing with them, or the public, in terms of sufficient infor-mation about the WCI once the provisional waterclassification documents were completed. By extension,these respondents expressed that it was their perceptionthat the WCI was of low importance to the provincialgovernment. One respondent from the St. Croix Interna-tional Waterway Commission cited little to no transpar-ency for how the provincial government was planning toimplement and enforce the Water Classification Regula-tion. Other respondents (n = 3) expressed that they weresuspicious of the government because of the lack of pro-gress towards establishing enforceable regulations. Therespondents interpreted this as lack of progress as theWCI no longer being a priority for the DELG; twostatements from respondents explaining this follow:

[L]egitimately I think there [are] some legal issues [that]have to be addressed but I think they can be addressed. Ijust think that the priorities of the provincial governmenthave shifted with shifting parties. And that happens a lotacross provinces I’m sure; with shifting governments,priorities shift. And until that comes back to a top prior-ity again we are going to be struggling against this bat-tle. (respondent from the Kennebecasis WatershedRestoration Committee)

[The ministry] claim[s] it’s a problem with the regula-tions. But they have not defined what that is and in factthe new group within the New Brunswick environmentalnetwork, the water caucus, fired off a letter to the minis-ter recently expressing concern about the lack of activity,lack of action. And suggested that we sit down with herand discuss what the issues are … (respondent from theMeduxnekeag River Association)

A second theme in the category of challenges,expressed by several respondents (n = 7), was the reduc-tion of capacity due to less funding availability after thecreation of the provisional water classification documents.For example, a respondent from the Coalition des BassinsVersants de Kent stated, “[T]he obstacles are that it’s toughto keep the momentum” (translated from French). Withoutsecure funding, watershed organizations must apply forfunding from other sources, which is not always reliable.Several watershed organization respondents (n = 4) statedthat they do not have the required financial capacity tocontinue working on the WCI in their watershed:

Funding is the biggest challenge … Watershed groupswere almost totally funded through the Department ofEnvironment through the bottle return environmentaltrust fund. [It] used to be that Watershed Groups [were]the only Environmental Groups out there. Now sincethose funds have become available, environmentalgroups [have] pop[ped] up all over the place. Everyonecompetes for that money, and even universities get achunk of that money now. So there’s a whole lot morehands out looking for funding. The Department of Envi-ronment tends to try to give everyone a piece of the pie,which means that the foundation for the watershedgroups is not there anymore … Challenge for us is tofind new funding sources, right now. Or try to figure outwhat hoops you have to jump through to get fundingthrough the Department of Environment … (respondentfrom the Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance)

The capacity of the provincial government was alsoidentified as a challenge by some respondents (n = 3).Staff turnover and changing priorities for governmentdepartments were cited as two significant issues in main-taining momentum and capacity within the provincialgovernment to move forward with the water classifica-tions. The lack of communication between the differentMinistries was identified by two respondents.

The final theme to emerge within the category ofchallenges addressed the lack of enforceability throughthe Water Classification Regulation (n = 4). Respondentsexpressed considerable frustration as they had workedtowards this expectation for over a decade and aftermuch effort realized that they would not be able to influ-ence water quality enforceable standards in theirwatershed. Even respondents who did not explicitly iden-tify enforcement of regulations as a challenge (n = 6)commented on the lack of progress within the provincialgovernment for this regulation and have correspondingquestions about their capacity:

Well, the biggest frustration of course is that [the WCI]has not been implemented. We’ve been working on thisprocess for many many years now and it’s been a mas-sive project, a valuable project, an important project. Itwould be important to see it actually come into fruitionand come into full use to really take full advantage of it.I mean it has been good because it has given us struc-ture; we know a lot more about our watershed after hav-ing gone through that process. And it’s a good internaldocument, it’s certainly providing us with guidelines andtargets for projects and project activity, but it just doesn’thave the teeth it should have at this time. (respondentfrom the Hammond River Angling Association)

The frustrations described by watershed organizationrepresentatives speak to the vulnerability of watershedorganizations to political changes (Kallis et al. 2009),specifically to the period of uncertainty about the legalstatus of the WCI and the financial challenges. Otherstudies in collaborative governance describe similar

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

challenges: Ivey et al. (2006b) describe a lack of legalcapacity by local governments to protect source watersin Alberta, and highlight the potential to compromiseexisting strategies in place at the local level as a resultof this lack of capacity. Timmer et al. (2007) identifyfinancial capacity of organizations to engage in protec-tion projects and maintain a balanced budget as one offive capacity indicators for successful source water pro-tection. More broadly, the Global Water Partnership(2000) underscores the importance of political commit-ment to making the necessary investments in manage-ment of water resources for sustainable water resourcesmanagement, and the importance of appropriate manage-ment instruments including regulations. The concernsabout the lack of enforceability of the water classifica-tions persist: recent news stories reported by the CBC(2013a, 2013b) highlighted the concerns about industrialactivities on water quality in watersheds where provi-sional water classifications may have promoted the main-tenance of good water quality, had the WaterClassification Regulation been enacted.

Conclusions: Some lessons for source waterprotection from the New Brunswick WaterClassification Initiative

Protecting source waters is an important and formidablechallenge. While contextual factors that shape approachesto source water protection vary, a considerable opportunityexists to learn from experience and policy experiments inother locales (Swainson and de Loë 2010, 2011). Thisresearch investigated the WCI in New Brunswick. TheWCI offered an opportunity to gain insights from a long-standing provincial policy initiative undertaken on awatershed scale which coincides with growing interest innew modes of water governance. The in-depth case studydescribed the development of the policy initiative, exam-ined the structural relationships among the governmentand non-government actors, and identified successes andchallenges experienced by those involved.

In drawing upon the in-depth investigation of thiscase study, three lessons or insights stand out to informthe development of source water protection policy inother places, including source water protection policyand regimes beyond Canada. Practitioners from acrossCanada dealing with source water protection governancechallenges identified the insufficient nature of simpledescriptions and called for accounts to include detailedinformation to discern applicability to their situation (deLoë and Murray 2012). Lesson one stems from thedetailed description and analysis of the case. The WCIconfirms widespread assertions in the source waterprotection literature about the importance of the

watershed scale (e.g. National Research Council 2000;Pires 2004), the need to emphasize collaboration (e.g.Hardy and Koontz 2008; Plummer et al. 2011; Simpsonand de Loë 2011), and opportunities afforded by combin-ing “science” infused with local knowledge (e.g.Ferreyra and Beard 2007; van Tol et al. in press). It alsooffers a useful illustration as to how this suite of keyaspects may be incorporated into the design and imple-mentation of source water protection policy. The secondlesson gleaned from the case study concerns the role ofgovernment and the ability to build capacity through thepolicy process. The need for research related to govern-ment (or state)-led/mandated collaborative environmentalmanagement is established (Koontz et al. 2004; Brummelet al. 2012). The New Brunswick WCI case providesimportant insights into the extent to which source waterprotection planning and action can be catalyzed throughpolicy alongside supportive efforts to engender engage-ment such as outreach, access to information and fund-ing. Perceptions of the non-governmental actors involvedspeak to both the benefits and challenges experiencedwith the WCI. These highlight enabling and constrainingfactors for policy makers elsewhere. Perhaps most impor-tantly, the WCI process and all those involved built con-siderable capacity across New Brunswick and aroundwatershed organizations. In so doing it reinforces workby Timmer et al. (2007) in the Annapolis Valley of NovaScotia concerning key factors which build capacity forsource water protection, such as leadership at multiplescales, education and networks.

A third lesson from this research concerns the incor-poration of social network analysis in future source waterprotection studies. The use of social network analysis innatural resource management is increasing (Bodin andCrona 2009); however, to the best of our knowledge, theanalytical technique has not been employed in relation tosource water protection in Canada. The results of thesocial network analysis in the WCI in New Brunswickindicate the importance of considering and paying partic-ular attention to relationships among actors. A novelapproach in identifying the types of interactions amongboth formal and informal actors, in the context of sourcewater protection, offers insights into the patterns andtype of interactions that occurred during the WCI,including an explicit demonstration of cross-level andcross-sector linkages. The specific social network analy-sis methodology employed provided a valuable opportu-nity to identify social capacity building and the nuancesof interactions between the NB DELG and watershedorganizations. Future research efforts to analyze orexperiment with source water protection policy may ben-efit from empirically investigating interactions amongactors, including the quality thereof.

60 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation to the individuals,organizations and agencies who participated in thisresearch project. We also are grateful to Dr. Cynthia Sta-cey and Paul Wilson for their kind assistance, support andinsights. The Canadian Water Network and the Social Sci-ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada aregratefully acknowledged for their financial support.

ReferencesAdger, W. N., K. Brown, and E. L. Tompkins. 2005. The

political economy of Cross-Scale networks in resourceCo-Management. Ecology and Society 10(2): 9.

Baird, J., S. Mitchell, R. Plummer, S. Purdy, K. Rathwell, and E.van Tol Smit. 2011. Water Governance in New Brunswick:Looking Forward. 4 November 2011. Workshop Report.French Fort Cove, Miramichi, NB. University of Waterloo,Waterloo, ON: Water Policy and Governance Group.

Barbour, B. T., W. F. Swietlik, S. K. Jackson, D. L. Courte-manch, S. P. Davies, and C. O. Yoder. 2000. Measuringthe attainment of biological integrity in the USA: A criticalelement of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422(423):453-464.

Benson, D., A. Jordan, and D. Huitema. 2012. Involving thepublic in catchment management: An analysis of the scopefor learning lessons from abroad. Environmental Policy andGovernance 22: 42-54.

Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networksin natural resource governance: What relational patternsmake a difference? Global Environmental Change 19: 366-374.

Brummel, R., K. C. Nelson, and P. J. Jakes. 2012. Burningthrough organizational boundaries? Examining Inter-Orga-nizational communication networks in Policy-Mandatedcollaborative bushfire planning groups. Global Environmen-tal Change 22: 516-528.

Caruso, B. 2000. Comparative analysis of new zealand and USapproaches for agricultural nonpoint source pollution man-agement. Environmental Management 25(1): 9-22.

Canada Broadcasting Company (CBC). 2013a. NashwaakValley Residents Worry About River Designation. CanadianBroadcasting Corporation. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2013/03/22/nb-nashwaak-tungsten-mine-823.html (accessed March, 2013).

Canada Broadcasting Company (CBC). 2013b. New FrackingRules Won’t Stop Protests, Say Opponents. CanadianBroadcasting Corporation. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2013/02/18/nb-fracking-rules-upset-both-sides.html (accessed March, 2013).

Conley, A., and M. A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating collaborativenatural resource management. Society and NaturalResources 16: 371-385.

de Loë, R., R. D. Kreutzwiser, and D. Neufeld. 2005. Localgroundwater source protection in Ontario and the provincialwater protection fund. Canadian Water Resources Journal30(2): 129-144.

de Loë, R., and D. Murray. 2012. Governance for SourceWater Protection in Canada: Synthesis Report. Waterloo,ON: Water Policy and Governance Group.

Dolowitz, D., and D. Marsh. 1996. Who learns what fromwhom? A review of the policy transfer literature. PoliticalStudies 44(2): 343-357.

Ferreyra, C., and P. Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation ofcollaborative and integrated water management: Insightsfrom the field. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 50(2): 271-296.

FitzGibbon, J., and R. Plummer. 2004. Drinking water andsource water protection: A challenge for integration inwatershed management. In Canadian perspective on inte-grated water resources management, edited by D. Shrub-sole, 84-103. Cambridge, ON: Canadian Water ResourcesAssociation.

Global Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated Water ResourcesManagement. TAC Background Papers No. 4. Stockholm,Sweden: Global Water Partnership. http://www.gwp.org/Global/GWP-CACENA_Files/en/pdf/tec04.pdf (accessedFebruary, 2013).

Hardy, S. D., and T. M. Koontz. 2008. Reducing nonpointsource pollution through collaboration: Policies and pro-grams across the US states. Environmental Management 41(3): 301-310.

Health Canada. 2012. Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines.http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php (accessed January, 2013).

Hrudey, S. E., and E. J. Hrudey. 2004. Walkerton and northbattleford – key lessons for public health professionals.Canadian Journal of Public Health 93(5): 332-333.

Hrudey, S. E., E. J. Hrudey, and S. J. T. Pollard. 2006. Riskmanagement for assuring safe drinking water. EnvironmentInternational 32: 948-957.

Imperial, M. T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governancestrategy: Lessons from six watershed management pro-grams. Administration and Society 37(3): 281-320.

Innes, J., and D. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: AnIntroduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy.New York: Routledge.

Ivey, J. L., R. de Loë, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2006a. Planning forsource water protection in Ontario. Applied Geography 26:192-209.

Ivey, J. L., R. de Loë, R. Kreutzwiser, and C. Ferreyra. 2006b.An institutional perspective on local capacity for sourcewater protection. Geoforum 37: 944-957.

Kallis, G., M. Kiparsky, and R. Norgaard. 2009. Collaborativegovernance and adaptive management: Lessons from Cali-fornia’s CALFED water program. Environmental Scienceand Policy 12: 631-643.

Koontz, T. M., T. A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K. S. Korfmacher,C. Moseley, and C. W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Envi-ronmental Management: What Roles for Government?Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Laing, Hon. R. D. 2002. Report of the Commission of InquiryRe: North Battleford. Regina, SK: Queen’s Printer.

Leach, W. D. 2006. Collaborative public management anddemocracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships.Public Administration Review 66(s1): 100-110.

Mandelker, D. R. 1989. Controlling nonpoint source waterpollution: Can it be done? Chicago-Kent Law Review 65:479-502.

National Research Council. 2000. Watershed Management forPotable Water Supply: Assessing New York City’sApproach. Washington, DC: Water Science and TechnologyBoard, National Academies Press.

New Brunswick Department of the Environment and LocalGovernment (NB DELG). 2002a. Understanding the Law:A Guide to New Brunswick’s Water Classification Regula-

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tion. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/env/pdf/Water-Eau/WaterClassificationRegulation.pdf (accessedMarch, 2013).

New Brunswick Department of the Environment and LocalGovernment (NB DELG). 2002b. The Water ClassificationRegulation – Planning for Water Quality. http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0371/0003/0001-e.asp (accessed March,2013).

New Brunswick Government (NB Government). 1989. CleanWater Act. http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showpdf/cs/C-6.1.pdf(accessed March, 2013).

O’Connor, J. D. 2002. Part One Report of the Walkerton Com-mission of Inquiry. Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer forOntario. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/ (accessed March, 2012).

Patrick, R. 2008. Source water protection for nonmetropolitandrinking water operators in British Columbia, Canada.Journal of Rural and Community Development 3(2): 64-78.

Patrick, R. 2009. Source water protection in a landscape ofnew era’ deregulation. The Canadian Geographer 53(2):208-221.

Patrick, R., R. Kreutzwiser, and R. de Loë. 2008. Factorsfacilitating and constraining source water protection in theOkanagan valley, British Columbia. Canadian WaterResources Journal 33(1): 39-54.

Pires, M. 2004. Watershed protection for a world city: The caseof New York. Land Use Policy 21: 161-175.

Plummer, R., D. de Grosbois, R. de Loë, and J. Velaniškis.2011. Probing the integration of land use and watershedplanning in a shifting governance regime. Water ResourcesResearch 47(9): W09502. doi:10.1029/2010WR010213.

Plummer, R., J. Velaniskis, D. de Grosbois, R. Kreutzwiser,and R. de Loë. 2010. The development of new environ-mental policies and processes in response to a crisis: Thecase of the multiple barrier approach for safe drinkingwater. Environmental Science and Policy 13: 535-548.

Rogers, P., and A. W. Hall. 2003. Effective Water Governance.Background Papers No. 7. Elanders Novum, Sweden:Global Water Partnership Technical Committee.

Selin, S., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborativemodel for environmental planning and management. Envi-ronmental Management 19(2): 189-195.

Simms., G., D. Lightman, and R. de Loë. 2010. Tools andApproaches for Source Water Protection in Canada.Governance for Source Water Protection in Canada, ReportNo. 1. Waterloo, ON: Water Policy and Governance Group.

Simpson, H., and R. C. de Loë. 2011. Source water protection– achieving a collaborative approach. Paper presented atGeoHydro 2011. Quebec City, QC, 28-31 August 2011.

Stake, R. 1995. The art of case research. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Swainson, B., and R. C. de Loë. 2010. Exploring the role ofpolicy transfer in water governance: A discussion paper.

Waterloo, ON: Water Policy and Governance Group, Uni-versity of Waterloo.

Swainson, R., and R. de Loë. 2011. The importance of contextin relation to policy transfer: A case study of environmentalwater allocation in Australia. Environmental Policy andGovernance 21: 58-69.

Timmer, D. K., R. de Loë, and R. Kreutzwiser. 2007. Sourcewater protection in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia: Les-sons for building local capacity. Land Use Policy 24: 187-198.

Trachtenberg, Z., and W. Focht. 2005. Legitimacy andwatershed collaborations: The role of publication participa-tion. In Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches towatershed management, edited by P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht,M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz and M. Matlock,53-82. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

UNICEF/World Health Organization. 2012. Progress onDrinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update. http://whq-libdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789280646320_eng_full_text.pdf (accessed February, 2013).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).1991. Protecting Local Ground-Water Supplies ThroughWellhead Protection. Washington, DC: Office of Water.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).1993. Wellhead Protection: A Guide for Small Communi-ties. Washington, DC: Office of Water.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).2012. Summary of the Clean Water Act. http://www2.epa.-gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (accessedApril, 2013).

Van Tol, E., R. C. de Loë, and R. Plummer. In press. Knowl-edge engagement in collaborative environmental gover-nance. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement.

Walker, P. A., and P. T. Hurley. 2004. Collaboration derailed:The politics of ‘Community-Based’ resource managementin Nevada County. Society and Natural Resources 17:735-751.

Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis:Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Wollondeck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collabora-tion Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural ResourceManagement. Washington, DC: Island Press.

World Health Organization. 1996. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Volume 2: Health Criteria and OtherSupporting Information, 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Young, S., R. Plummer, and J. FitzGibbon. 2009. What can welearn from exemplary groundwater protection programs?Canadian Water Resources Journal 34(1): 61-78.

62 J. Baird et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:21

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14