Water

"Canadians are concerned about how the environment affects their health, thus about the quality of the water they drink.”¹ Public perception, as a determining factor driving public policy, can be as persuasive as empirically based evidence. In consequence, it is important to understand how Canadians perceive the quality of their drinking water supply and the behaviours that respond to those concerns.

The bottle or the tap: Sources of drinking water

Households can choose to drink their tap water, only bottled water, or both. Those households who choose not to drink their tap water, or who only do so after treating it, may be exhibiting either a dislike for its taste or a lack of confidence in its safety or may simply be following the popular style of the day. Their choice may also depend on whether they obtain their tap water from a municipal source or from a non-municipal source, such as a well.

Almost 3 in 10 Canadian households got their drinking water from a bottle

Almost 3 in 10 households drank primarily bottled water as opposed to their tap water.  In places where municipal water supply is provided, 29% of Canadian households reached for bottled water (figure 3.1). Similarly, 29% of households with non-municipal water sources used bottled water (Annex table 1).

Among the provinces, households with municipal water supply in New Brunswick and in Newfoundland and Labrador were the least likely to drink only their tap water (48% and 49%, respectively) and were the most likely to be drinking only bottled water (37% and 35%, respectively). The remainder of the households drank both tap and bottled water. On the other hand, households in New Brunswick on wells or other non-municipal sources were among the most likely to drink only tap water (75%) and one of the lowest ranking users of bottled water (16%).

Across Canada’s census metropolitan areas (CMAs), there was much variation in the degree to which households used bottled water as their primary source of drinking water. Many factors can influence the extent to which households choose bottled water, such as past incidents involving public water supplies (e.g., Walkerton, Ontario in 2000, and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, in 2001), the aesthetic qualities—taste, odour and colour—of water, the convenience of bottled water as a healthier choice over other beverages, and ongoing marketing by the bottled water industry.

Knowledge of local conditions is important in understanding household behaviour, and this is especially so with drinking water. For example, households with a municipal water supply in Kitchener were the least likely to consume tap water (41%) and the most likely to use bottled water (46%) (Annex table 2). This may be linked to a Cryptosporidium outbreak in Kitchener–Waterloo that occurred in 1993. Although no epidemiologic evidence was reported to establish that the drinking water was responsible, extensive source water monitoring confirmed Cryptosporidium was present in the raw water.² Perhaps some lingering negative perceptions about the quality of the tap water remains.

On the other hand, Saskatoon had the highest proportion of households drinking only tap water and the lowest rate of bottled water use (77% and 10%, respectively). The City of Saskatoon provides water quality information on its website, including a video describing how source water is drawn, treated and distributed to the tap. Public education initiatives such as this may have contributed to a positive public attitude about the water supply.

Figure 3.1: Main type of drinking water consumed by households with a municipal water supply, by province, 2006

Is it okay to drink? Households that test their drinking water

Canada is highly urbanized and most households get their water from their city or town. Only 13% of households reported using non-municipal water sources such as wells, lakes or rivers (text table 3.1). However, this proportion varied considerably by province. As might be expected, the more ‘rural’ provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the highest share of households using non-municipal water sources.^{3, 4} In contrast, in British Columbia, one of the most urbanized provinces, only 9% of households reported using non-municipal water sources.

Concerns about the quality of household drinking water may lead households to have their water tested by a laboratory.⁵ It might be expected that a large proportion of households on wells (where, unlike municipal systems, the water is not otherwise tested) would be testing their water. However, only 35% of households with a non-municipal water supply had their water tested by a laboratory in 2005. It seems most households on non-municipal supply have a reasonably high level of confidence or satisfaction in the quality of their water or already know its limitations for drinking. Among those households that tested their water in 2005, 85% reported that no contaminants were found by the laboratory (text table 3.1).

In Ontario, 90% of households with a non-municipal water supply that had their water tested did not find a problem. In contrast, households with a non-municipal water supply in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were more likely to report water quality problems after testing. Common, naturally-occurring substances in prairie groundwater include sulphate-reducing bacteria (called iron bacteria) and inorganic substances such as iron, manganese, arsenic, sulphate, calcium, magnesium and sodium.⁶ Areas where groundwater supplies are shallow may also be susceptible to other problems more common in surface waters (e.g., nitrates). These substances can accumulate in wells over time as there is less chance for soils to filter them out.⁷

Text table 3.1: Households with a non-municipal water supply that had their water tested by a laboratory, by province, 2005

Text table 3.2: Treatment of drinking water by households with a municipal water supply, by province, 2006

Safety and aesthetics: Household treatment of drinking water

Whether laboratory results indicate that they should do so or not, some households choose to treat their water in some manner, even if it has already been treated by a water provider. While many may do this because of the perception of a health risk, others do it simply to improve the taste, or to eliminate odour or colour. Information on the reasons why households treat drinking water, together with the methods they use, can provide insights into their perceptions of water quality and how households assess any risks associated with consuming the water.

Text table 3.3: Treatment of drinking water by households with a non-municipal water supply, by province, 2006

Text table 3.4: Reasons why households with a municipal water supply treated their tap water before drinking it, by province, 2006

Approximately 7 out of 10 households (both municipal and non-municipal water supply) reported drinking their tap water, and slightly fewer than half of these elected to treat the tap water before they drank it (text table 3.2 and text table 3.3). Among households that consumed their tap water, 4 out of 10 used some type of filter. Households connected to a municipal supply were more apt to use a stand-alone filter, while those on a well or other non-municipal source were more likely to use a filter on the tap or supply line. Within Canada’s CMAs, half of the households that consumed municipally supplied tap water applied some form of treatment to the water (Annex table 4). Stand-alone filters were the preferred treatment method (30%), as opposed to filters directly attached to supply pipes (15%) or other methods.

Canada-wide, of those households with a municipal supply that treated their tap water, 59% did so mainly to improve taste and appearance (text table 3.4).  Quebec households, at 31%, were least likely to treat their tap water, whereas those in Newfoundland and Labrador, at 60%, were the most likely to treat their tap water. The improvement of taste or appearance was the main reason for treating water in all CMAs with the exception of Windsor, where the removal of water treatment chemicals (a factor in the taste of water) ranked as the main reason for treatment (Annex table 5).

A slightly lower percentage of households with non-municipal sources (45% versus 48% for municipally-supplied ones) reported treating their tap water before drinking (text table 3.3). More than half of these households (53%) identified the removal of metals or minerals as the main reason for treating their drinking water (Annex table 6). Most non-municipal water supplies are groundwater and these tend to have a higher mineral content than the surface water supplies that typically serve municipal systems. Nationally, 40% of households with municipal water supply that treated their water reported doing so to remove possible bacterial contamination. This compares with 34% of households on a private well or surface source.

Turning off the taps: Water conservation on the increase

Aside from drinking water issues, another important theme in the survey centred on the water conservation practices of households. Water availability is an emerging issue in some parts of the country and may be exacerbated by climatic changes. For example, in the summer of 2001, many regions of Canada experienced drought or near-drought conditions that led to regulatory responses by municipal authorities (e.g., water use restrictions) or the voluntary adoption of water conservation measures by households.⁸ In other locations, while water may not be in short supply, municipalities and taxpayers incur increased water treatment costs as demands for water grow.

The survey asked a number of questions on household practices aimed at conserving water or reducing water usage. In particular, households were asked whether there was a water-saving showerhead or low-volume toilet in their home. Fifty-four percent of Canadian households reported having a water-saving showerhead and 34% a water-saving toilet (text table 3.5). When similar questions were asked in 1994, 42% of households had water-saving showerheads and only 15% had a low-volume toilet.

Text table 3.5: Households that used water conservation devices, by province, 1994 and 2006

Text table 3.6: Households that used water conservation devices, by presence of a water meter, by province, 2006

Water conservation practices and metering

The presence of water meters varied widely across the country, from only 4% of Newfoundland and Labrador households to 92% of Manitoba households reporting having this equipment.

Generally, municipalities use water meters to measure the volume used by a household or a business and to bill it accordingly. Conventional wisdom suggests that meters encourage households to conserve water. However, a greater percentage of households without water meters reported having water-saving showerheads than did those with a metered water supply. Households with metered water were more likely to have water-saving toilets (text table 3.6).

Fourteen percent of households had rain barrels or cisterns while 23% of households had a timer attached to their sprinkler when they watered their gardens (Annex table 7).

---