This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 06 October 2014, At: 09:20Publisher: 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

Groundwater knowledge management for southernOntario: An example from the Oak Ridges MoraineSteve Holysha & Richard Gerbera

a Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Program (York Peel Durham Toronto – ConservationAuthorities Moraine Coalition) Downsview, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 19 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Steve Holysh & Richard Gerber (2014) Groundwater knowledge management for southern Ontario: Anexample from the Oak Ridges Moraine, Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques,39:2, 240-253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2014.914788

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

Groundwater knowledge management for southern Ontario: An example from the Oak RidgesMoraine

Steve Holysh* and Richard Gerber

Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Program (York Peel Durham Toronto – Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition) Downsview,Ontario, Canada

(Received 27 December 2013; accepted 6 March 2014)

The interest surrounding groundwater protection in Southern Ontario has grown considerably since the Walkerton tragedyof May 2000. Since that time, a number of technical studies have been undertaken by the Province to support the prepara-tion of Source Water Protection plans. Underlying all sound water resource management initiatives in Ontario is the needfor a renewed focus on the fundamentals, specifically in this case a focus on groundwater knowledge and its management.Using the Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Program as a unique example of a groundwater “knowledge management”system, this paper presents some unexplored opportunities that merit further consideration in the application of a“knowledge management” philosophy within Ontario’s overall water management framework. Within the Program’s studyarea, the linkage and integration of the Water Well Information System with other borehole datasets and consultingreports, as well as with water use (e.g. municipal pumping) and water quality databases, has created perhaps the mostcomprehensive, actively managed groundwater “knowledge management” system in Canada. Ongoing Source WaterProtection and other work undertaken through consultants, including data and geological/hydrogeological interpretations,is being re-incorporated, where sound and appropriate, into the program’s existing groundwater knowledge infrastructure.The program’s groundwater “knowledge management” system has been developed with a long-term (i.e. multi-decade)water management time frame in mind and is made accessible to geoscientists undertaking work in the area.

L’intérêt entourant la protection des eaux souterraines dans le sud de l’Ontario s’est accru considérablement après latragédie de Walkerton en mai 2000. Depuis cet événement, le gouvernement provincial a entrepris plusieurs étudestechniques pour soutenir la préparation de plans de protection des sources d’approvisionnement d’eau potable. Derrièretoutes les initiatives visant la gestion rigoureuse des ressources hydriques en Ontario se trouve la nécessité de porterattention renouvelée sur les aspects fondamentaux et, pour ce cas particulier, une attention ciblée sur la connaissance deseaux souterraines et leur gestion. Utilisant le programme de caractérisation hydrologique de la moraine d’Oak Ridge commeexemple unique d’un système de « gestion des connaissances » sur les eaux souterraines, cet article présente quelquesopportunités inexplorées qui méritent plus de considération dans l’application d’une philosophie de « gestion desconnaissances » dans le cadre global de la gestion de l’eau en Ontario. Dans la zone d’étude du Programme, les liens etl’intégration de l’information sur les puits d’eau potable avec d’autres ensembles de données sur les forages et les rapportsde consultants, ainsi que les bases de données sur l’utilisation (ex. : pompage municipal) et la qualité de l’eau, ont créé cequi est probablement le système de « gestion des connaissances » sur les eaux souterraines activement géré le plus completdu Canada. S’ils sont rigoureux et pertinents, les futures travaux sur la protection continue des sources d’approvisionnementen eau et les études des consultants, y compris les interprétations géologiques et hydrogéologiques, seront intégrés à l’infra-structure existante de connaissances sur les eaux souterraines du programme. Le système de « gestion des connaissances »sur les eaux souterraines a été créé avec une vision à long terme (sur plusieurs décennies) de la gestion de l’eau, et il estdisponible aux géoscientifiques qui entreprennent des travaux dans la région.

Introduction

As in many other jurisdictions, in Ontario the complexityof managing groundwater is reflected in the large numberof government agencies, at several levels, that contributeregulations, rules, guidelines and general oversight tocontrolling the various human activities that may affectthe groundwater system. At the provincial level, theMinistry of Environment (MOE), Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR) and Ministry of Municipal Affairs andHousing (MMAH) have significant roles in groundwatermanagement and protection, whereas the Ministry of

Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Foodand Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) also play roles, albeit of amore limited nature. At the local level, largely throughthe many submitted applications to change land use,additional oversight and implementation of manygroundwater management activities are carried out bymunicipal governments and conservation authorities. Onbehalf of the federal Department of Fisheries andOceans, many conservation authorities also screenplanning applications for possible harmful alteration, dis-ruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, although

*Corresponding author. Email: sholysh@trca.on.ca

© 2014 Canadian Water Resources Association

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 2014Vol. 39, No. 2, 240–253, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2014.914788

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

recent changes at the federal level may diminish thisactivity. Effective groundwater management thereforeshould involve all levels of government and all depart-ments within an organization that is involved in landuse, resource use and servicing/infrastructure.

Looking back historically, it is noteworthy that dur-ing the establishment of the Ontario Water ResourcesCommission (OWRC) in the mid 1950s, which inciden-tally preceded, and then, in 1972, evolved into, the cur-rent Ministry of Environment (MOE), it was deemedimportant that the responsibility for the assessment andmanagement of Ontario’s water resources lie under a sin-gle umbrella group (Scott 1970). Coincidentally, duringthe 1950s, the United States Geological Survey had simi-lar concerns regarding the fragmentation of waterresource management, which led to the restructuring andintegration of its then-separate water resource programbranches under the direction of Luna Leopold (Hunt andMeine 2012). Between its inception in 1956 and its finalintegration into the MOE, the staff at the OWRC gainedwide-ranging respect for their scientifically principledknowledge and management of Ontario’s groundwaterresources and for their informative scientific reporting.

Following the May 2000 tragedy in Walkerton whereseven people died after consuming E. coli-contaminatedmunicipal groundwater, the provincial government hasembarked on a long-running and continuing journey toensure safe drinking water for Ontarians. One of the pillarsof this work, Source Water Protection (SWP), was broughtforward under the 2006 Clean Water Act. Through thisAct, Ontario required that SWP committees be struck andcharged with preparing SWP plans to protect existing andfuture sources of drinking water across the Province.Based on science, the plans are developed locally andcollaboratively with the goal of enacting policies tomanage land-use activities in the areas around municipalwells or surface water intakes.

Since the direction from Justice O’Connor (2002) wasto undertake the work on a watershed basis, Ontario’sconservation authorities, working in partnership withmunicipalities, were charged with leading the technicalwork which has led to the preparation of watershed-based“Assessment Reports”. These technical reports character-ize the existing hydrological/hydrogeological conditionswithin Ontario’s watersheds and include an inventory ofauthorized water takings as well as land uses or activitiesthat may impact on the quality or quantity of water sup-plies. A significant component of the Assessment Reportsis the undertaking of a water budget analysis. Thetechnical Assessment Reports form the basis for thesubsequent Source Protection Plans (SPP) being preparedby and for each Source Protection Area. The SourceProtection Areas conform to existing conservationauthority boundaries.

With all of this new SWP work now having beenundertaken, it is important that this significant Provincialinvestment continue to be effectively used and built upongoing forward. The data, knowledge and understandingthat have been gained through SWP are in danger ofwinding up on the shelves if a concerted effort in knowl-edge management is not undertaken. Has the overalltechnical knowledge gained through SWP been ade-quately transferred to the public? Are the data collectedhoused effectively and are they readily accessible toother practitioners?

The objective of this paper is to explore and com-ment on aspects of groundwater knowledge managementthat could be implemented in Ontario. The suggestion isthat through multi-agency cooperative efforts, as evi-denced by the Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Pro-gram (York, Peel Durham Toronto [YPDT]-ConservationAuthorities Moraine Coalition [CAMC]), groundwater-related data are more thoroughly and carefully collected,analysed and managed. By extension, groundwater flowsystems, including links to the surface, and the associ-ated implications to planning and municipal servicing,are more accurately characterized and understood,thereby leading to more sound water management deci-sions and policy. The study area for the Oak RidgesMoraine Hydrogeology Program (herein referred to asthe ORM Program) is shown in Figure 1.

Groundwater knowledge management

There shall be no man or woman dare to wash anyunclean linen, wash clothes, ... nor rinse or make cleanany kettle, pot, or pan or any suchlike vessel withintwenty feet of the old well or new pump. Nor shall any-one aforesaid, within less than a quarter mile of the fort,dare to do the necessities of nature, since by theseunmanly, slothful, and loathsome immodesties, the wholefort may be choked and poisoned. (Gates, 1610)

This quotation, now some 400 years old, and clearly avery early example of Source Water Protection, speaksto the groundwater knowledge of the time. It was sus-pected that the migration or transfer of pollutants into awell or water supply could take place from adjacentareas. Over the years, this initial rudimentary understand-ing has grown such that the technical details of contami-nant transport through the subsurface are now reasonablyknown. This example of knowledge capture and transferprovides a context for the following discussion.

In the past 10 to 20 years, both public-sector agen-cies and private corporations have come to recognize theimportance of the need to better manage information. Inthe seminal 2001 report entitled Managing the Environ-ment, Gibbons notes that the Ministry of Environment

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

was lacking in a strategy “to create, manage and useexternal and internal knowledge” (Gibbons 2001). Inarriving at this conclusion, they note the erosion of his-torical links between the academic community inOntario’s universities and the MOE, as well as the socie-tal trend towards devaluing the legitimate role of publicservice to build a strong knowledge-creation and analysiscapacity. The development of a comprehensive Environ-mental Knowledge Management strategy is one of 10key recommendations arising from the report. “Knowl-edge Management” has evolved as a discipline on itsown and there have been many theoretical managementpapers written on the topic (e.g. Brown and Duguid1998; Karreman 2001). For the purposes of this paper,the term has come to mind owing to several observationsof similar hydrogeological investigative work beingundertaken at the same location, often separated in timeby up to several decades. Also of note is the departuredue to retirement of many experienced practitioners whotake with them many years of knowledge regardingOntario’s groundwater and surface water resources.

In the context of the discipline of knowledge man-agement, knowledge is not data, nor is it information.Rather, it is what is known. Ideally, a knowledge man-

agement system would be able to capture lessons, strate-gies, stories, guidelines, etc. (Durrant 2001). In the caseof a resource that is as disparately managed as ground-water, decision-making would benefit from a system thatwould capture and organize the collective memory of themany individuals and organizations, both public and pri-vate, which have played and continue to play roles inthe management of Ontario’s water resources. As such,knowledge management in the context of the followingdiscussion is most pointedly applied to the capture oforganizational memory. Effectively harnessing thisgroundwater memory would improve groundwater deci-sion-making by enabling users to locate the focusedinformation they need, when they need it, so they canapply it to their work readily without having to combthrough irrelevant information.

With the increasing attention on water resources inOntario since the Walkerton tragedy, and as demand forwater increases simultaneously with the uncertainty asso-ciated with climate change, it is becoming critical thatgroundwater practitioners in the Province “know whatwe know” with respect to our water resources and thatthey are able to readily access and make use of thisknowledge. Budgetary restraints are also an important

Figure 1. Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Program (YPDT-CAMC) study area (York, Peel Durham Toronto [YPDT]-Conserva-tion Authorities Moraine Coalition [CAMC]). The small rectangular box in the center of the study area shows the map area forFigure 2.

242 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

driving factor to make better use of previously gainedknowledge. Water resource knowledge resides in manyplaces at all three levels of government (federal; provin-cial; municipal and conservation authority) as well aswithin the private sector. Knowledge can be found incorporate and individual databases, filing cabinets,reports, people’s heads, etc. Remaining unaware of whatwe collectively know leads to duplication, re-inventionand waste (Australian Local Government Association[ALGA] 2004).

It is our experience that some groundwater-relatedwork is being repeated, sometimes after several decades,simply because there has not been careful tracking ofexperiences and lessons learned. For example, the dril-ling of municipal exploration wells has taken place inthe same location, separated in time by decades and, notsurprisingly, with the same results and conclusions. Also,poor decisions have been made as a result of a limitedunderstanding of the groundwater flow system that hasbeen documented in previous, difficult-to-access reports.

Figure 2 provides a very simple example of how theuse of previously acquired information could be har-nessed to improve groundwater decisions. The figureshows a plot of wells in the MOE’s Water Well Informa-tion System (WWIS) that were drilled within a part ofYork Region for municipal exploration or supply pur-poses. The black “plus” sign locations show all of themunicipal test wells drilled over the years, and the blacktriangles show those wells, a small percentage, that havebeen successfully completed as high-capacity municipalsupply wells. On the other hand, the circles indicatewells that have been reportedly abandoned immediatelyafter drilling owing to insufficient aquifer yields. Thewells that are neither triangles nor circles have generallybeen converted to monitoring wells of one kind oranother. It can be seen that there are several cases wheremore than one unsuccessful well (circles or plus signs)has been drilled at the same location, this often occurringover a time span of several decades. Certainly in plan-ning new municipal groundwater exploration programs,such a map, when combined with additional geologicalknowledge and insights, would prove indispensable inproviding clues as to where one might explore in thesearch for new supplies. Surprisingly, with staff turnoverboth in the private sector as well as in the municipal sec-tor, historical information of the nature shown in Figure 2is less frequently utilized than one would expect.

Although the above example is more directly linkedto data within a database versus derived or interpretedknowledge, other less direct examples can be readilyfound. How should it be remembered that there are verysignificant flowing conditions in High Park in Toronto,along Major Mackenzie Drive in Richmond Hill, oralong Horseshoe Valley Road near Barrie? Who shouldremember that the Thorncliffe Formation contains a very

productive coarse-grained gravel channel at the locationof the recently excavated sewer dewatering shaft along16th Avenue in Markham? Who should recall the loca-tions of springs and former streams in the City ofToronto that may significantly affect current constructioncosts? How are the locations of known trout spawningbeds (groundwater discharge areas) incorporated intogroundwater decision-making?

Unquestionably, there is great economic value in thesubsurface information that can be gleaned from histori-cal works. Considering the great expense of drilling newwells, especially if they are unsuccessful, or the expenseof failed construction projects, for example, as a result ofunknown flowing conditions, combined with the desireto effectively manage water resources for overall societalgood, it certainly seems warranted that “out of sight”groundwater-based knowledge management be given ahigher priority.

A key “knowledge management” plank in the effortsof the ORM Program is to make available previously writ-ten reports and papers that are relevant to the groundwaterresources of the study area. Key reports have been scannedand catalogued into a digital library and assigned coordi-nates so that they can be quickly located on a map. Thereports are searchable within the database on any numberof key fields (e.g. author, author agency, client, title, year,key words, etc.). The digital report library has already pro-ven to be of significant importance in capturing and orga-nizing groundwater knowledge so that it can be readilybrought to bear on current groundwater concerns.

To further house and document some of these keyinterpreted aspects of Ontario’s groundwater knowledge,the ORM Program is also developing a geographicallybased database table/geographic information system(GIS) layer that would bring to the attention of Ontario’sgroundwater practitioners some of the key groundwaterinsights learned over the past decades. Categories of“knowledge management” locations would include thoserelated to construction, flowing conditions, environmentallinkages, geological anomalies, etc. For each record, thedatabase houses the category, the consultant or hydroge-ologist involved in the project, a start and end date, anda memo field documenting the key insight linked to thelocation. The groundwater knowledge management tablewill be slowly populated over the coming years as differ-ent consultants are interviewed to capture insights gainedfrom their experiences.

Groundwater knowledge management through SourceWater Protection

Within this context, it is worthwhile to examine therecent roll-out of Ontario’s SWP work. Over the pastfew years, the Province has allocated some $150 millionthrough Conservation Ontario to the conservation

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

authorities (CAs) for SWP initiatives. The funding hasbeen used to cover some CA staff costs, with theremainder directed to the consulting community to com-plete various tasks required under the SWP program.Although many of the SWP tasks that have been under-taken have been fairly typical consultant contracts (e.g.watershed characterization reports, assessment of proper-ties for risk management, etc.) it is the groundwatermodelling work that merits further discussion here.

The precise funds that have been allocated to SWPgroundwater modelling across the province have notbeen specifically tracked. However, it is estimated thatthey are on the order of tens of millions of dollars, per-haps as high as $50 million. While this is not a particu-larly large number in the context of provincial spending,it is certainly large when it comes to the capacity ofOntario’s groundwater consulting community to carryout groundwater modelling initiatives, particularly recog-nizing that these funds were allocated over a fairly shorttime span (roughly between 2007 and 2011). It is putforward here that groundwater modelling creates unique

opportunities to gain insight into groundwater flow sys-tems and that all of the insights gained are typically notwell documented or captured in the consulting reportsreturned to the public sector.

Groundwater modelling investigations typically con-sist of two distinct phases, the first being the model con-struction, development and calibration phase. The secondphase typically involves running the calibrated modelunder several scenarios, generally to evaluate wellheadprotection areas and assess their potential variability as aresult of changing pumping or land use. Both phases aretypically carried out by the consulting community. How-ever, it is only later in the second work phase wherethere may be public-sector staff input and engagement inthe modelling process. Following the required SWP anal-yses, the models are then to be transferred to the conser-vation authority or municipality so that they areavailable to run indefinitely to assist in decision-making.

There is little discussion in the literature regardingwhether the insights and knowledge of the geologicalframework and the groundwater flow system garnered

Figure 2. Portion of York Region showing municipal water exploration and supply wells.

244 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

through modelling studies are greater through the first orthe second phase of modelling work; in other words, “Isthe journey more important than the destination?” It isput forward here that with respect to groundwater model-ling, and depending upon the complexity of the systembeing modelled, the journey can indeed be significantlymore important than the destination. Greater insights intothe groundwater system are frequently gained in thebuilding phase of modelling work. It is during this per-iod that the conceptual model is developed and initiallytested, and it is in this phase where the input parametersare assigned and adjusted to investigate how the flowsystem responds to subtle changes. During this stage ofdevelopment work, changes can be significant, for exam-ple those made to the overall conceptual model, or theymay be more typical and include adjustments to inputparameters such as recharge, boundary conditions, poros-ity or hydraulic conductivity. Frequently, small but verysalient details or nuances are uncovered during themodel-building phase of work, and these can be impor-tant to the longer-term understanding of the groundwaterflow system and management of the resource.

From our experience, modellers focus on runningand re-running the model as they continually adjust andtweak model parameters. It is perhaps a distraction andan inconvenience to stop the modelling process and ade-quately transcribe many of the key insights into thegroundwater flow system that are learned during thiswork. This groundwater knowledge is frequently absentfrom the final reports, and with the minimal public sectorstaff engagement during this early phase of work, at theend of the project, these key insights are only retainedby the consultant or, more typically, they are lost andforgotten as they move to new projects.

Within the ORM Program, it has been proposed thatgroundwater flow models would be managed as “living”entities under the concept that the models would be contin-ually updated and improved as new data are collected andnew insights or knowledge are gained. It has also beenproposed that the updating process would be overseen bypublic-sector agencies with technical support from consul-tants as required. This overall model management direc-tion, and in particular the concept that the models will beimproved over time by differing consultants, is uncom-mon. More typical is the case where a groundwater modelis prepared to address only a particular issue and is thenabandoned once the goal is accomplished.

As this ORM Program-proposed path of maintaining“living”, continually improved groundwater flow modelsis carried forward and perhaps adopted elsewhere, it isworth considering how the groundwater insights, thegroundwater “knowledge” from these modelling studies,and in particular from the early phases of work, can bebrought forward and beneficially “managed”. The “livingmodel” concept has met with mixed results in the ORM

Program, in part due to the flood of SWP money over ashort time frame which enabled the creation of manylocalized groundwater flow models. The process ofchecking these models and re-incorporating the insightsgained into a more regional unified interpretation is timeconsuming and much work remains to be undertaken inthis regard. Outside of the ORM Program study area, thefuture use of the constructed groundwater flow models isuncertain, given the lack of financial resources availableto retain consultants to re-run the models for particulartasks. It is put forward that the path of future groundwa-ter model use and additional development within Ontarioneeds to be re-examined within the context of longer-term water resource management.

With this brief discussion on where SWP initiativesmight be better integrated into a broader knowledgemanagement system, it begs further questioning as towhether other aspects of Ontario’s groundwater manage-ment could also be improved. Given that the initial phaseof SWP technical groundwater work that has been under-taken across Ontario since 2006 is now nearing comple-tion, it is indeed timely to ask such a question. Thesepossibilities are explored further in the next section.

Managing Ontario’s groundwater related data

To effectively understand, regulate and manage Ontario’sgroundwater resource, a solid understanding of howwater moves through our watersheds is needed, which inturn requires ready access to well organized, high-qualitydata and information. The prime data source that is uti-lized in all of Ontario groundwater studies is the WWIS,managed by the MOE. The Province, through what wasthen the Geological Branch of the Department of Mines,first licensed well drillers in 1946 and they began to col-lect information on water wells at this time; licensingcontinues to this day. Within the Ministry, the data havebeen stored in various formats, and over the years, exter-nal access to the WWIS has been provided through vari-ous methods. In earlier years, the Ministry (or its OWRCpredecessor) offered hard-copy reports of the wellrecords through periodically published Ground WaterBulletins. When that became too unwieldy or expensive,access to the database became more difficult in the1980s and 1990s. In the early days of computers,throughout the 1980s, the WWIS data were only avail-able in hard copy on a county-by-county basis, byrequest. In the 1990s, as digital data and computingbecame more widespread, the Ministry experimentedwith a fee to access the WWIS data. Recently, withrenewed leadership within the MOE’s EnvironmentalMonitoring and Reporting Branch (EMRB), onlineaccess to individual well records was granted, and cur-rently, county/region-wide digital data are directly down-loadable from the MOE (MOE 2014).

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

A second important groundwater-related database thatis administered by the MOE stores the Permit To TakeWater (PTTW) program data. Beginning in 1961, legisla-tion required that all water taking in excess of 50,000 L/dayhave a permit issued by the MOE. In more recent years, asignificant improvement to the management of this datasethas seen the MOE move to collect records of actualvolumes of water taken from PTTW sources.

The WWIS houses basic information on wells drilledin the province. The database contains details pertainingto the following aspects of each well at the time of origi-nal construction or upon a significant alteration:

� location (e.g. map and coordinates, elevation);� construction (e.g. screen depth, diameter, casing

type, seals, etc.);� hydrogeology (e.g. static and pumping water lev-

els, depth at which water was found, test pumpingrate and recommended pumping rate);

� purpose, and� geology (the depth and thickness of each layer

intersected in drilling the well).

Slight changes to the information collected have beenmade over the years; however, the core set of informa-tion captured has largely remained consistent. One sig-nificant adjustment to the WWIS system began in 2003with an updated well regulation that clarified the require-ment for non-water supply drillers to submit well recordsfor test holes or dewatering wells. Formerly, only watersupply well drillers routinely submitted well records tothe MOE, and many of the higher-quality boreholes froma geological logging perspective were never capturedinto the WWIS. Since 2003, some wells drilled for geo-thermal energy purposes remain outside of the regulationrequiring records to be submitted to the MOE.

Given the far-sightedness of the early MOE pioneersin developing a database system to capture and storewell record information, it is discouraging to note that,aside from the 2003 change, there have been very fewinnovative ideas reflected in the formal capture ofOntario’s groundwater information. The Clean Water Actand its SWP initiatives provide an opportunity, albeitone that is rapidly fading as the Province moves on toother priorities, for the MOE to rethink its datamanagement practices.

Database opportunities

Since 2001, the ORM Program has been actively buildinga groundwater database system that significantly expandsupon the information housed in the WWIS (Holysh et al.2011). With reasonable expenditures in terms of stafftime, energy and money, the MOE could make similar

efforts that, over time, would incrementally enhance thescope and quality of information made available toOntario’s groundwater practitioners. It is suggested that ifthe opportunities presented below are acted upon, waterresource management across Ontario will be markedlyimproved. It is also worth noting that most Canadianprovinces collect and organize groundwater informationin a similar fashion to Ontario (Council of CanadianAcademies 2009), and therefore they could also benefitfrom the discussion presented here.

There are several areas where the WWIS can bereadily improved. Suggestions proposed below do notrequire a significant shift in resources. Indeed, much ofwhat has been accomplished through the ORM Programhas been done incrementally with limited resources overa 10-year time frame. Perhaps the key requirements arepassion and leadership as well as commitment frommany MOE staff, ministry-wide, to improve upon theoverall data management at the Ministry. There are sixareas outlined below where opportunities exist toimprove the WWIS:

� General database management,� Additional information,� Screened intervals,� Geological unit assignment,� Incorporation of temporal data, and� Integration of differing datasets.

General database management

The WWIS system is largely overseen by a few individ-uals and, as a result, it is difficult for MOE staff toensure that the data reported by well drillers are com-plete and accurate, and that the data entered into theProvince’s digital database are entered correctly. Aresponsibility that comes with managing the WWIS isthat of tracking changes and updates to the WWIS. Formany years, the MOE was ill equipped to receivechanges (e.g. typos, incorrect interpretation of hard-copywell records, etc.) noted by consultants and others asthey used the WWIS in their day-to-day work. As aresult, there was an era during the 1990s when opportu-nities to work with stakeholders to improve upon thedatabase were lost. The MOE has moved forward fromthis time and staff now update and fix inaccuracies inthe WWIS as they are detected. A concern is that, shouldthe database be corrected or changed in any way, undercurrent practices there is no record or flag provided tousers indicating a change made within the database. Fur-thermore, there is no tracking of database versions ordate stamps provided with WWIS datasets downloadedfrom the MOE website. This could have implications forlong-standing programs (i.e. PTTW projects, landfill pro-jects, etc.) where consultants or others may have made

246 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

hydrogeological interpretations based on an older datasetpreviously provided by the MOE. An improved method-ology for tracking changes and updates to the databasewould be beneficial.

The official well record form that well drillers use toprovide information to the MOE has changed manytimes over the years, yet it has generally required thesubmission of much of the same information. In 2003,however, a change to the well record form initiallyrequired drillers to report all measurements in metricunits. Subsequently, with input from drillers, the formwas adjusted to allow for the reporting of drilling/con-struction depths in either feet or metres (as indicated bya checkmark on the correct units). With these changesthere arose the opportunity for incorrect units to beapplied against geological unit depths and well depths.Errors related to units (metres vs feet) remain in theWWIS and can be significant. Recent discussions withMOE staff suggest that this problem was more signifi-cant in the early days of the well record form change-over and has diminished considerably in recent years.The restricting of the reporting again to only one unit ofmeasurement is recommended here to eliminate this con-fusion, although it is recognized that another changemight again introduce a period of error introduction andthis must be weighed in any decision going forward.

A further issue is the removal of the well owner fromthe MOE database owing to privacy concerns. With noaccess to the original well record submission form, it isdifficult in many instances to uniquely identify any par-ticular well. For key public sector or other corporatewells, where construction is overseen by a professionalconsultant, a borehole record is provided to the clientindependent of the well driller. In the many cases wherethe A-tag number is not recorded on the consultant bore-hole record, and where the coordinates of the two sub-mitted records differ, trying to match the MOE WWISrecord with the consultant-produced well record (whichoften contains enhanced details not included in what thedriller reports to the MOE) is often difficult. One sugges-tion that might assist in this regard is to provide a fieldfor a “Well Name” on the WWIS form (e.g. TW #1-13,Alton OW #3, Angus Glen Golf Course #4, etc.). Thiswould allow for the privacy issue concern of the MOEto be respected, while at the same time helping consul-tants and others to more effectively find wells in thedatabase. It is noted that access to the original wellrecord form via the internet is currently being plannedby the MOE. It is recognized that this may also help toresolve the issue.

Additional information

Subsequent to the amendments to the well regulation(Regulation 903) in 2003, there was an increase in well

record submissions to the WWIS as records for variousgeotechnical test holes and dewatering wells began to besubmitted to the MOE. However, prior to this time,many of the better-quality boreholes (e.g. those geologi-cally logged and overseen by consulting hydrogeologists)were not submitted to the MOE for incorporation intothe WWIS. Well records for many of these high-qualitywells can be found as appendices to consulting reports.In an “opportunistic” fashion (i.e. by only addressingwells that come before MOE staff in the course of every-day work), MOE staff can slowly build into the WWISsome of the key boreholes (e.g. deep wells, flowingwells, etc.) that are absent from the WWIS.

Another possible opportunity would be to link thewell records with key scanned or digital PDF reportssubmitted to the Province in support of various land useplanning/water-taking initiatives. With a long-term visionof providing groundwater practitioners with access topublicly available, historical technical groundwaterreports in a PDF format, the MOE could drasticallyreduce the amount of internal and external consultingtime, and therefore costs, allocated to searching for back-ground hydrogeological information across the province.

Screened intervals

From both a geological and a hydrogeological perspec-tive, the position and length of the screened interval inthe subsurface is critical information. Knowing whichaquifer produces the groundwater extracted from a wellhas implications for all hydrogeological studies. A long-standing WWIS issue is that it fails to identify or linkany particular well with a known aquifer or geologicalunit. Although the WWIS was never intended to incor-porate this interpretive information, the ability to placewell construction information into a regional hydrogeo-logic context would be a significant enhancement. Thiswas highlighted most recently as SWP AssessmentReports were being prepared where there was a criticalneed to identify all wells that were tapping into a spe-cific aquifer unit for the purposes of assessing aquiferhydrodynamics and vulnerability. Also, in those areaswhere groundwater modelling (e.g. Tier 2 and 3 studies)for the purpose of detailed water budget analyses hastaken place, the calibration of the groundwater flowmodels depends on the assignment of wells to specifichydrogeological units. This information is currentlyunavailable through the WWIS. There are two reasonsfor this: (1) the lack of rigorously documented screeninformation within the WWIS and (2) the lack of aregional geological model to which can be linked thewells and their screens.

The WWIS database provides the depth of the welland, when reported, also stores the top and bottomdepths of the well screen. Of concern is the infrequency

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

with which drillers report well screen details to the Min-istry. Overall, within the WWIS, only about 20% ofwells have a reported screen. The numbers improvesomewhat if the bedrock wells are considered separatelyfrom wells that terminate above the bedrock in the gla-cial sediments (i.e. for the wells that are completedwithin the glacial sediment, 41% have reported screens).Historically, some domestic wells installed within sedi-ments situated above bedrock were completed withoutany well screens, or rather just as an open pipe or slottedpipe. This information is not included in the WWISsystem.

For the wells with no reported screen, assumptionshave to be made in order to make good use of the waterlevel data. For wells that advance into bedrock, anassumption has to be made that the well is open alongthe entire length of bedrock (i.e. “screened”) from thebedrock surface (or from the bottom of a bedrock-seatedcasing, if reported) to the bottom of the well. For wellsthat terminate within the glacial sediment, it is uncertainas to whether the wells simply have no screen (i.e., thewell is developed using air to leave a coarser-grainedsediment in the bottom of the well) or whether the drillerfailed to report the screen. For these wells, any recordedwater level data either have to be omitted from analyses,or the well has to be manually assigned a screen top andbottom. In the case of the ORM Program, these wellshave been assigned an assumed screen of 0.3 m lengthat the bottom of the well. These assumed screens havebeen flagged in the database to caution any interpretiveefforts based on data from these locations.

This lack of screen reporting may be readily solvedby introducing a checkbox on the Well Record Form toindicate whether the well has, or does not have, a screen.The new checkbox would allow for a record within thedatabase of those wells that have been purposefully con-structed with no screen.

Complicating this situation is the fact that manydrillers use the term “open hole” to identify the annularspace around the well screen in many non-bedrock wells.This confusion could be removed by educating drillers(perhaps in the MOE’s existing best management prac-tices [BMP] manual; MOE 2009) to restrict the use ofthe term “open hole” to bedrock wells only.

Geological unit assignment

The second part of the problem of identifying aquifersfrom which individual wells draw their water relates tothe absence of a geological/hydrogeological frameworkinto which wells can be positioned. On a well-by-wellbasis, the WWIS provides documentation of individualgeological layers encountered as wells are being drilled.However, it falls short in terms of moving forward tointerpret individual layers as part of a recognized

hydrogeological formation or unit that can guide futuregeoscientists.

In the late 1970s, the MOE completed some majoraquifer mapping based on information contained withinthe WWIS (e.g. Turner 1977), but these maps havebecome outdated. Some three-dimensional hydrogeologi-cal mapping on a watershed basis was conducted by theMOE during the 1970s and 1980s during the completionof the Water Resources Reports series (e.g. Sibul et al.1977). Singer et al. (2003) also provided a generaldescription of the hydrogeology of southern Ontario. Acommon theme relating to these earlier initiatives is thatthey were treated as individual projects rather than aspart of a long-term, comprehensive program of quantify-ing Ontario’s groundwater resources. Over recent years,and certainly with the onset of the Province’s SWP ini-tiatives, there is a growing need to establish commongeological frameworks, particularly in areas of thickerglacial sediment packages where no formal provincialgeological framework exists. The Geological Survey ofCanada initiated such a framework over much of south-central Ontario (e.g. Sharpe et al. 2011). Through SWP,the Province has received digital geological interpreta-tions across many parts of the province. These interpreta-tions generally conform to conservation authorityboundaries (Figure 3). This offers, for the first time, aset of digital layers against which the tops and bottomsof screened intervals can be measured, thus allowingeach well screen to be assigned to a geological unit. Inareas of overlapping coverage, these SWP geologicalinterpretations could be integrated into the three-dimen-sional aquifer mapping studies (also shown on Figure 3)now being conducted by the Ontario Geological Survey(OGS) (e.g. Bajc and Shirota 2007; Brunton andBrintnell 2011) to provide updated and authoritative geo-logical mapping across widespread parts of the province.Moving forward, this combined interpretation could thenbe tested and refined by the OGS as they expand theiraquifer mapping program to other parts of the province,and could be used to gain improved understanding of thesubsurface environment. It should also be noted that theOGS Ambient Groundwater Geochemistry Program isbeing conducted in concert with their three-dimensionalaquifer mapping program to provide vital documentationof regional groundwater geochemical conditions forOntario (e.g. Hamilton et al. 2011).

The geological sediments encountered while drillingthrough formally recognized geological formations canthen be analysed on a formation-by-formation basis tolook at the variability of subsurface units that controlgroundwater movement. In addition, by assigning wellscreens to individual geological units, the hydraulics ofthese units can be evaluated to answer many questionsthat are currently unanswered for many parts of the prov-ince (e.g. How much water is being pumped from the

248 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Thorncliffe Formation? Is the water quality in the deeperCatfish Creek till different from the shallow aquiferabove? What do measurements of the hydraulic head inthe Scarborough Formation indicate about the flow sys-tem? etc.). Answering these types of questions enhancesthe quality of submitted reports and the ability of regula-tors to address cumulative impact concerns.

Currently, within the ORM Program database, thereis one dedicated table that houses the results of such awell screen evaluation. For each well screen in the data-base, the position of the screen top and bottom has beenevaluated against different geological models (i.e. the2003 Core model, the 2007 Durham model, etc.) andassigned accordingly to a widely recognized, interpretedformation. It is recommended that the WWIS be simi-larly expanded to house at least one field (if not onetable) where the “assigned” formation for each screencan be stored. It is not recommended here that the welldrillers become familiar with the geological frameworkto such an extent that they could assign any completedwell to a formation or aquifer. The lack of consistencywith such an approach would be detrimental to assem-bling authoritative well screen assignments. Rather, it isproposed that well screen depths be consistently andproperly recorded in the WWIS database, and thatthe “screen/aquifer” or “screen/formation” match-ups be

undertaken through a three-dimensional GIS procedureconducted by qualified practitioners as is the case withthe ORM Program database.

Incorporation and integration of temporal data

One important area where the WWIS database could beimproved is in its capacity to capture and store long-termgroundwater-related measurements. The WWIS databasehas been designed to store the few water level measure-ments collected at each well during initial testing. How-ever, longer-term pumping rates, chemistry data andadditional water level data have no home within theWWIS. It is also surprising to find that other importantdatasets maintained by MOE staff, such as the DrinkingWater Surveillance Program (DWSP) chemistry data, theProvincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN)data and the PTTW records have not been linked to indi-vidual well records. Rather, they are held separately andunlinked to the WWIS. Such a link would be advanta-geous to the disparate databases, allowing for an inte-grated analysis of all data from various programs, andperhaps ultimately from different scientific disciplineswhich often have a need for common baseline informa-tion. An example is the need for the chemistry data tobe interpreted by well depth or on an aquifer basis,

Figure 3. Areas within southern Ontario with some level of three-dimensional geological/hydrogeological interpretation.

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

acknowledging the need for strict quality assurance/qual-ity control (QA/QC) protocols relating to water qualitydata. It is reiterated that effective groundwater resourcemanagement requires access to the historical measure-ments spanning multiple disciplines. This was the pre-mise invoked by the former OWRC (Scott 1970). Waterquality or water level trends, when measured over longtime periods, greatly enhance the understanding ofgroundwater systems (e.g. how the system might respondto climate change, droughts and wet conditions, howland uses might affect quality, etc.).

As a template, the ORM Program database has beenestablished to store temporal data that are tied back to aparticular screened interval in a well. Within this data-base, three tables house the temporal information andtwo tables are linked to data that are provided via a labo-ratory, whereas the third table houses data that are mea-sured in the field. By consolidating the temporalinformation in such a manner, data of various types canall be stored with a similar format. A “Reading NameCode” points to specific diverse parameters, rangingfrom climate-related codes (e.g. precipitation, tempera-ture, etc.) to water quality-related codes (e.g. chloride,pH, trichloroethylene, etc.) to hydraulic-related parame-ters (e.g. water level, pumping rate, streamflow, etc.).Such a transformation in the WWIS would greatlyenhance its value to all Ontario government ministries aswell as to outside practitioners, and would help it evolveto become a more comprehensive groundwater manage-ment database.

Thoughts on future groundwater use

There has been a long-term shift in the more ruralcommunities surrounding Toronto towards LakeOntario-based municipal water supplies to replacegroundwater-based supplies. The list of communities thatwere once groundwater-based but that now look to LakeOntario for a water supply is lengthy, and it continues togrow (e.g. Bolton, Bowmanville, King City, RichmondHill, Oak Ridges, Huttonville, Brampton, Markham,Unionville, Maple, Stouffville [partial], Aurora [partial],Milton [partial], etc.). Kleinburg, the latest in this longlist, has just recently turned to Lake Ontario-based waterin 2013. For communities further away from one of theGreat Lakes, this trend might not yet be manifest owingto the greater expense associated with pipelineconstruction.

The decision to switch water supply sources is sub-ject to the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA)process whereby municipalities must succinctly presentthe problem to be resolved, identify reasonable alterna-tive solutions to the problem, select a preferred solution,file a Notice of Completion and finally implement thepreferred solution. Public consultation throughout the

process is required. Through the Class EA process,typically the main reasons highlighted for a change-overto Lake Ontario-based servicing are additional growthand the inability for groundwater pumping to keep upwith the growing water demand. Other reasons cited formoving away from groundwater include cost anduncertainty tied to exploration, quality and cost oftreatment issues (e.g. generally elevated iron, hardness ormanganese), uncertainty in the future groundwatersupply quantity and/or quality, and maintenance ofgroundwater-related infrastructure (e.g. well screens andpumps) (see Halton Regional Municipality 2007 orKMK Consultants Ltd. 2007, for example).

Currently, in those cases where a Lake Ontariosource is a viable alternative to groundwater, it is likelythat the odds are tipped in favour of a Lake Ontario-based source. Factors that weigh against a groundwateroption include:

(1) The uncertainties tied to groundwater explorationand development (i.e. Will the necessary quantitybe found? How much effort will be needed toshow no negative impact on adjacent users andecosystems? Will a treatment facility to removeiron or manganese be needed? Will the MOEissue a permit? etc.);

(2) The short time frames generally available to findviable groundwater sources within the Class EAprocess, and

(3) The lower perceived project “status” tied togroundwater-based options within the municipalarena, taking into consideration aspects such aslower project budgets, lower “press” coverageand lower job creation both internal and externalto the municipality.

With the introduction of SWP into the overall mix,in addition to the above considerations, municipalitiesmust now bring any new municipal wells into the SWPplan. This involves, among other challenges:

� Initially negotiating with local neighbours of theproposed wellhead for access to drill test wells;

� Fighting local opposition to proposed municipalwells due to the perception among rural land own-ers that SWP will “sterilize” their lands;

� Updating groundwater flow models to delineatethe wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) (which,incidentally, depending on the new well location,might affect existing capture zones and thereforecreate additional work to ensure compliance withthe SWP plan under the new pumpingconditions);

� Undertaking risk-based assessments for the landparcels within the delineated capture zones;

250 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

� Initiating communication and carrying out thenecessary SWP plan policies related to affectedlandowners within the new WHPA, and

� Other works required to ensure the long-termprotection of the source.

Given all of the above considerations, when agroundwater-based alternative is weighed against theoption of building a single pipeline connection to thenearest Lake Ontario-serviced community, the lake-basedoption often presents as the more favourable alternative,even though the financial costs may be lower for agroundwater-based option. It will be interesting to see ifthe rate at which communities move away from ground-water increases as the additional costs of SWP becomeentrenched within the overall municipal workload.

To help counter this trend, a better characterizationof groundwater systems would provide water managerswith a sound understanding of the capacity of their watersource and a more reliable basis for decision-making.Information that is required on a regional basis includes:

� The quantities of groundwater potentially availablefor extraction (i.e. water budgets),

� The directions of groundwater flow,� The location and depths of more permeable sedi-

ments (i.e. detailed aquifer mapping), and� The interaction with surface waters, particularly

where significant groundwater discharge to streamsoccurs.

Improved characterization of the groundwater flowsystem is indeed a vision of the ORM Program to assistwith adding needed certainty to groundwater-basedoptions when evaluated within the Class EA process.The Region of Waterloo is an example where thegroundwater system has been reasonably well exploredand characterized. Here too, a Lake option exists, andindeed the Region’s original (2000) long-term water sup-ply strategy envisioned a Lake Erie pipeline by 2035 todeal with the anticipated growth. However, the develop-ment of new groundwater sources in the Waterloo Mor-aine, in combination with water efficiency measures tolower demand, has proven to be a more cost-effectivealternative. Water managers now consider the groundwa-ter-based supply to be secure for the foreseeable future.

Concluding remarks

Historically, Ontario has gone through phases – such asduring the early Ontario Water Resources Commissiondays in the 1950s and 1960s, or during more recent post-Walkerton times in the 2000s – when water managementwas a focused priority for the Province. The 1980s and1990s reflected a period of less focus on the Province’s

water resources. Over this entire period, Ontario has beenfortunate to have many high-quality practitioners, withinthe public sector, in the consulting community and inOntario’s universities, who have contributed greatly tothe understanding and management of Ontario’s water.Fortunately, this continues to be the case.

For an extended period of Ontario’s water resourcedevelopment history, mostly in the earlier years, theresponsibility for collecting groundwater data and infor-mation, and managing and understanding Ontario’s waterresources, including groundwater systems, was borne bythe Province. Initially, this was conducted under a singleprovincial entity known as the Ontario Water ResourcesCommission. Following the transition of the OWRC intothe MOE, the management of water resources fell underthe mandate of various ministries (Miller 2000). Withchanges in priorities, increasingly restricted budgets anda decrease in staffing levels, water resource knowledgemanagement within the provincial public sector becamesplintered and has declined, leaving a significant gap inOntario’s water resources knowledge. Despite renewedefforts in this area arising as a result of the Walkertontragedy, according to the Environmental Commissionerof Ontario, significant gaps still remain in our abilities torespond to low water conditions (drought) and to effec-tively allocate our water takings with consideration toboth human needs and ecosystem health (Miller 2012).Failure to effectively co-ordinate the endeavours of allresponsible parties or agencies can lead to long-term eco-nomic consequences either through the inadequate or ill-informed allocation of our water resources or throughduplicated efforts.

In today’s society, it could be questioned as to whoseresponsibility it is, if indeed it is anyone’s, to house suchgroundwater resource knowledge, to make it more user-friendly, to analyse it and finally to make it accessible topractitioners. Should such a task be undertaken by thepublic sector, or rather is it better overseen by the privatesector on a for-profit or even a not-for-profit basis?

At a provincial level, a groundwater-based knowl-edge management strategy would retain as its overarch-ing goal the quantitative understanding of the Province’sgroundwater. Figure 4, which uses a Council of Cana-dian Academies (2009) figure as a base, provides aframework for consideration. The strategy would requirethe long-term monitoring of the physical and chemicalcharacteristics of Ontario’s flow systems as well as themanagement of this monitoring data. Jurisdictions at anylevel of government, as well as researchers and privatesector companies involved in groundwater management,rely on these data and would be allowed ready access togroundwater-related information. This includes data,hydrogeologic/hydrologic interpretation and tools usedfor assessment and analysis (e.g. numerical models).These essential elements would vastly improve Ontario’s

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

groundwater decision-making, and at the same timeenhance the interaction between all parties. While up-scaling the ORM Program model to the provincial levelis a significant task, the possibilities of such an integra-tive effort are intriguing.

Local initiatives such as the ORM Program, wherebylocal-level (e.g. regional municipalities and conservationauthorities) public-sector agencies have collectivelypooled resources, can be effective in assuming thisknowledge management responsibility. The program ishelping to provide a direction forward to address thisperceived lack of oversight regarding the management ofOntario’s water resources. It is anticipated that Provincialpartnership and involvement would only strengthen vari-ous local initiatives that exist.

AcknowledgementsThe discussion provided in this paper emanates from theauthors’ experience and from water resource management dis-cussions with staff at the various partner agencies (municipalgovernment and conservation authority) of the Oak RidgesMoraine Hydrogeology Program (YPDT-CAMC), as well asthe Province of Ontario and the Geological Survey of Canada.The opinions expressed remain the sole responsibility of theauthors and do not specifically represent those of the partneragencies of the YPDT-CAMC program. This manuscript wassignificantly improved by comments on earlier versionsreceived from technical staff: (1) from the program’s partneragencies (Russ Powell, Wendy Kemp, Mike Fairbanks and BobBetcher), (2) from the consulting community (Lloyd Lemon atGenivar), (3) from Provincial staff (from the EnvironmentalMonitoring and Reporting Branch of the Ministry of Environ-ment), and (4) from journal reviewers (Gary Hunter plus twoanonymous reviewers). In particular, critical review comments

received from Emil Frind were also insightful and greatlyenhanced the paper. The authors kindly thank all those thatassisted in this endeavour.

ReferencesAustralian Local Government Association (ALGA). 2004.

Local Government Knowledge Management Toolkit. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan032548.pdf (accessed May, 2013).

Bajc, A. F., and J. Shirota. 2007. Three-dimensional mappingof surficial deposits in the Regional Municipality of Water-loo, southwestern Ontario. Groundwater Resources Study3. Sudbury, ON: Geological Survey.

Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 1998. Organizing knowledge.California Management Review 40(3): 90–111.

Brunton, F. R., and C. Brintnell. 2011. Final update of earlysilurian stratigraphy of the Niagara escarpment and correla-tion with subsurface units across Southwestern Ontario andGreat Lakes Basin. In Summary of field work and otheractivities 2011, Open File Report 6270, 30-1–30-11.Sudbury, ON: Ontario Geological Survey.

Council of Canadian Academies. 2009. The sustainablemanagement of groundwater in Canada. Report of theExpert Panel on Groundwater. http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%report.pdf (accessed May, 2014).

Durrant, F. 2001. Knowledge management in the context of gov-ernment. Paper presented at the Caribbean RegionalMinisterial Consultation & High Level Workshop onE-Government, Information and Communication Strategiesin Public Sector Management. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan015174.pdf (accessed May,2014).

Gates, T. 1610. For the Colony in Virginea, Britannia. Lawesdivine, morall, and martiall. London, U.K. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lhbcb&fileName=7018c/lhbcb7018c.db&recNum=2&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Flhbcb%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28lhbcb7018cdiv6%29%29%237018c0037&linkText=1 (accessed May, 2014).

Gibbons, J. 2001. Managing the environment: A review of bestpractices. Toronto, ON: Executive Resource Group.

Halton Regional Municipality. 2007. Sustainable Halton, waterand waste water infrastructure. www.halton.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=18500 (accessed April, 2013).

Hamilton, S. M., E. J. Matheson, C. N. Freckelton, andH. Burke. 2011. Ambient groundwater geochemistry pro-gram: The 2011 Aurora-Orillia study area and selectedresults for the bruce and Niagara peninsulas. In Summary offield work and other activities, 2011, Open File Report 6270,32-1–32-11. Sudbury, ON: Ontario Geological Survey.

Holysh, S., R. E. Gerber, and M. Doughty. 2011. Data manage-ment: The most under appreciated and under funded aspectof groundwater management. In Proceedings of GeoHydro2011, Water and Earth: The Junction of Quaternary Geo-science and Hydrogeology; Joint Conference of theCanadian Chapter of the International Association ofHydrogeologists and the Canadian Quaternary Association,Quebec City, Quebec, 28–31, August 2011.

Hunt, R. J., and C. Meine. 2012. Luna B. Leopold – Pioneersetting the stage for modern hydrology. Ground Water50(6): 966–970.

Karreman, D. 2001. Knowledge management and “organiza-tional memory”: Remembrance and recollection in aknowledge intensive firm. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/

Figure 4. Possible shared provincial information and knowl-edge management system.

252 S. Holysh and R. Gerber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc3/papers/id312.pdf (accessedMay, 2013).

KMK Consultants Ltd. 2007. Environmental study report:Class environmental assessment, water supply and storagecapacity for Kleinburg-Nashville. Report prepared for theRegional Municipality of York. Brampton, ON.

Miller, G. 2000. Changing perspectives. EnvironmentalCommissioner of Ontario Annual Report 1999/2000. http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports%20-%20Annual/1999_2000/2000ar.pdf (accessed May, 2014).

Miller, G. 2012. Losing our touch. Environmental Commis-sioner of Ontario Annual Report 2011/2012, Part 2. http://www.eco.on.ca/index.php/en_US/pubs/annual-reports-and-supplements/losing-touch-part-2 (accessed May, 2014).

O’Connor, D. R. 2002. Report of the Walkerton inquiry, parttwo: A strategy for safe drinking water. Toronto, ON:Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). 2009. Water supplywells: Requirements and best management practices. PIBs#7333e, December. https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/941/a-title-page-table-of-contents-and-chapter-1.pdf(accessed May, 2014).

Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). 2014. Data downloads:Well record data. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/

en/resources/collection/data_downloads/index.htm#Well%20Records (accessed January, 2014).

Scott, J. C. 1970. Water Saga – A story of water managementin Ontario 1956–1968. http://agrienvarchive.ca/download/water_saga_56-68.pdf (accessed May, 2014).

Sharpe, D. R., M. J. Hinton, H. A. J. Russell, and A. J.Desbarats. 2002. The need for basin analysis in regionalhydrogeological studies: Oak Ridges moraine, SouthernOntario. Geoscience Canada 29: 3–20.

Sharpe, D. R., S. E. Pullan, and G. Gorrell. 2011. Geology of theaurora high-quality stratigraphic reference site and significanceto the Yonge Street buried aquifer, Ontario. Current Research2011-1. Ottawa, ON: Geological Survey of Canada.

Sibul, U., K. T. Wang, and D. J. Vallery. 1977. Groundwaterresources of the Duffins Creek-Rouge River drainagebasins. Water Resources Report 8. Toronto, ON: OntarioMinistry of Environment.

Singer, S. N., C. K. Cheng, and M. G. Scafe. 2003. The hydro-geology of Southern Ontario, 2nd ed. Hydrogeology ofOntario Series, Report 1, Environmental Monitoring andReporting Branch. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Environment.

Turner, M. E. 1977. Oak Ridges aquifer complex. WaterResources Map 78-2. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry ofEnvironment.

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

20 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014