Main article
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
1 Introduction
Water availability and water quality are ongoing issues of interest to Canadians. Canadians are concerned about how the environment affects their health, and thus about the quality of the water they drink. 1 A number of high profile incidents involving municipal water supplies during the past decade have increased the level of scrutiny to which people are subjecting their drinking water.
This paper presents results from the 2007 Households and the Environment Survey relating to drinking water decisions of Canadian households. Census metropolitan areas (CMAs) are large urban areas that provide a convenient way to examine data from the survey. While smaller urban areas that have municipal water systems do exist in Canada, the number of respondents in these areas often means that detailed results for these areas cannot be released for reasons of data quality.
Definitions and concepts
A census metropolitan area (CMA) is an area consisting of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A census metropolitan area must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the urban core. A census agglomeration (CA) must have an urban core population of at least 10,000.
Census subdivision (CSD) is the general term for municipalities (as determined by provincial or territorial legislation) or areas treated as municipal equivalents for statistical purposes (for example, Indian reserves, Indian settlements and unorganized territories).
Municipal households are households that are located in census metropolitan areas (CMAs).
1.1 Household water source
In 2007, 19 out of 20 (95%) households in Canada's census metropolitan areas (CMAs) were connected to municipal water supplies (see Table 1). Certain variations were observed across the country. For example, households in CMAs in Atlantic Canada were less likely to be connected to a municipal water system than households in CMAs in the rest of the country. New Brunswick CMAs had the lowest proportion of households that had a municipal water supply (66%), followed by Nova Scotia (74%). The other provinces 2 all had more than 90% of CMA households connected to a municipal water supply, with Saskatchewan reporting the highest proportion (98%).
Because there is a diversity of municipal water system networks across the country, some municipalities have a higher percentage of households within their boundaries connected to their municipal water system than others.
Different sources of water
Municipal water refers to water delivered to households through the municipal water supply system.
Private water sources are wells and surface sources such as springs, lakes, rivers and dugouts. These are sometimes referred to as non-municipal water sources.
Collectively, municipal and non-municipal water may be referred to as tap water.
Bottled water includes purchased water in a water cooler, tank or other dispenser. It excludes water coolers that were filled with tap water.
For example, although most of the population in the Saint John CMA is located at the mouth of the Saint John River, the CMA extends northeast and southwest along the shore of the Bay of Fundy, as well as inland (see Map 1). The challenges of maintaining the oldest municipal water system in Canada combined with geographic constraints means that some rural portions of the CMA are not connected to the municipal water system (shown in purple). 3
Highly urban CMAs on the other hand, such as Windsor, Regina and Vancouver, have much greater shares of their households connected to their municipal water systems, resulting in 100%, 100% and 98% of CMA households, respectively, being connected to the municipal water system (see Table 2).
1.2 Drinking water decisions
Canadian households have options when it comes to the water they drink. Most have the option of drinking the water coming out of their taps, either from their municipality or from a private source, or they can drink bottled water. Of those households that had a municipal water supply in 2007, 59% reported they drank primarily tap water; twenty-nine percent drank primarily bottled water; while 11% reported they drank both tap and bottled water equally.
1.3 Water treatment
In 2007, 56% of CMA households with a municipal water supply treated their water before drinking it (see Table 4). Households in the Kitchener CMA were most likely to treat their water, with eight out of ten doing so, while seven out of ten households in the Toronto and Kelowna CMAs treated their tap water prior to drinking it (see Table 3). Aesthetic reasons (appearance, taste or odour) was most frequently reported by households (58%). One out of two reported the removal of water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine, while 45% treated their water for actual or perceived health risks such as bacterial contamination. Forty-one percent of households treated their water for the presence of metals or minerals.
While there are several types of filters and purifiers that can be used to treat one's drinking water (see text box "Water filters and purification systems"), jug filters were the most common, with 35% of households that had a municipal water supply and drank it using one (see Table 1). On-tap filters and purifiers were the next most frequently reported type of filter (12%). Treatment devices on the main supply pipe were reported by just over 1 in 20 (6%). Four percent of CMA households that had a municipal water supply and drank their tap water reported using more than one type of filter or purifier.
Another common form of water treatment is boiling the water for several minutes before using it. Boil water advisories and orders are often issued by health authorities when there is a risk of bacterial contamination of the water supply as a result of an event like heavy rains causing farm runoff to enter a reservoir, or as a preventative measure when water mains are being maintained or if the water system disinfection systems are not working properly. Usually, these advisories are only in effect for a few days, but they can be in effect for much longer periods of time in extreme cases. As of March 31, 2008, there were 1,766 boil-water advisories in Canada. 4 The reasons for these advisories ranged from "adverse taste to high coliform count to a breakdown in chlorination equipment". 5
Regardless of the reason, 12% of CMA households that drank municipally-supplied water boiled their water in order to make it safe at least once in the twelve months before they were interviewed (see Table 1).
1.4 CMA households with a non-municipal water supply
While most households in CMAs had municipally-supplied drinking water, 4% of households had non-municipal water supplies, such as private wells and surface sources (for example, springs, lakes, rivers and dugouts) (see Table 5). Because of this low proportion, it is only possible to examine national level data.
More than half (56%) of CMA households with a non-municipal water supply reported they drank primarily tap water. Thirty-four percent reported that they drank primarily bottled water, while 8% reported drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
Fifty-seven percent of households that drank water from a non-municipal supply treated their water prior to consumption. The use of a filter or purifier on the main supply pipe was most prevalent, with 31% of these households using one. Twenty percent used an on-tap filter, while 18% used a jug filter. Twelve percent of households reported that more than one type of filter was used.
Water filters and purification systems
There are a number of ways to treat tap water. The method used depends on:
- the source of the water (i.e., municipal versus non-municipal water source);
- the volume that needs to be treated; and
- the reason for treating the water (for example, aesthetic reasons, mineral or metal contamination, contamination by a pathogen such as bacteria).
Households that draw their water from a private source, such as a well, tend to install filters and purification devices on the main water pipe in their dwelling. Households connected to a municipal water supply are more likely to install these devices on their taps or use a jug filter.
More than one such device can be installed on a dwelling's main water pipe. For example, a household may use a mechanical filtration system to remove particulate matter from the water, an ultraviolet purification system to neutralize any bacteria that may be present and a water softener to make the water less hard. Generally, these systems are more expensive than on-tap and jug filter systems.
On-tap filters are devices that are attached directly to a faucet. Typically, they have a bypass valve that allows the tap to be used normally and only filtered when required. Most on-tap filters use activated charcoal as the filter medium.
Jug filters consist of a jug or pitcher with an integrated filter cartridge that usually contains an activated charcoal filter medium. Water is added to a reservoir in the pitcher and flows through the filter before collecting in the main part of the pitcher or jug.
2 Selected municipalities
Municipalities were selected to provide a broad geographic representation, with all provincial capital cities being included (see Tables 2 and 3). The amount of publishable data pursuant to Statistics Canada's data quality guidelines for a municipality was also taken into consideration.
2.1 St. John's CMA
Ninety-one percent of households in Canada's eastern-most CMA, St. John's, had municipally-supplied water in 2007. Almost three-quarters (72%) reported they drank primarily tap water.
Of those households that drank tap water, two-thirds (67%) treated their water prior to consumption. Almost half (49%) of the households that drank tap water used a jug filter to treat their water.
Forty-three percent of households that treated their tap water did so to improve its appearance, taste or odour, while 47% did so to remove water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine.
2.2 Charlottetown CSD 6
In 2007, 89% of the households in the Charlottetown CSD had a municipal water supply. Two-thirds (67%) of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, with about 27% reporting they drank primarily bottled water. Almost half (49%) of the households that drank tap water reported they treated their water prior to consumption.
2.3 Halifax CMA
In 2007, slightly less than three-quarters of the households (74%) in the Halifax CMA had a municipal water supply. Seventy-three percent of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, with the remainder reporting drinking either primarily bottled water or tap and bottled water equally. Just over half (52%) of those households that drank tap water treated the water prior to consumption.
Of those households that treated their tap water prior to drinking it, 58% did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour and half treated their water to remove water treatment chemicals.
2.4 Saint John CMA 7
Just over half (55%) of the households in the Saint John CMA had a municipal water supply, which is the lowest rate for a CMA in Canada. Slightly more than two-thirds (68%) of households that had a municipal water supply reported they drank primarily tap water.
2.5 Fredericton CA 8
About 62% of the households in the Fredericton CA had a municipal water supply in 2007. Of these households, 72% indicated they drank primarily tap water.
2.6 Québec CMA
Ninety-five percent of the households in the Quebec CMA had a municipal water supply. Almost 6 out of 10 (59%) of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, while 31% drank primarily bottled water, with 10% drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
Almost 3 out of 10 (29%) of households that drank the municipally-supplied water treated it prior to consumption. Sixty-three percent of these households treated their water to improve the appearance, taste or odour, while 56% did so to remove water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine. Concerns of possible bacterial contamination were cited by 38% of households, while about 36% treated their water to remove metals or minerals.
2.7 Montréal CMA
Almost all (98%) of the households in the Montréal CMA had a municipal water supply in 2007. Six out of ten of these households drank primarily tap water and slightly more than one-quarter (26%) drank primarily bottled water. The remaining 14% reported drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
Forty-three percent of households that drank tap water indicated they treated their water prior to consumption. About one quarter (24%) of households that drank tap water treated it using a jug filter and 12% used an on-tap filter. One in ten households that drank tap water boiled their water in order to make it safe at some point during the twelve months before the survey was conducted.
Just over half of the households (51%) that treated their water did so to remove water treatment chemicals and 48% indicated they did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour. Forty-five percent treated their water to remove metals or minerals and 43% treated their water to address possible bacterial contamination. About 1 in 10 reported they treated their water for some other reason.
2.8 Ottawa–Gatineau CMA
The Ottawa–Gatineau census metropolitan area is unique among the CMAs in Canada in that it straddles a provincial border. The Quebec and Ontario portions each have their own municipal water supply system, so in addition to the CMA-level analysis, analysis has been done for each provincial part of the CMA.
In 2007, 87% of households had municipally-supplied water. Sixty-four percent of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, while 25% reported they drank primarily bottled water. The remaining 10% reported they drank tap and bottled water equally.
Slightly more than half (51%) of the households in the CMA that drank tap water treated their water in some way prior to consumption. Households treated their water for a variety of reasons. The most frequently reported reason was to improve the appearance, taste or odour (72%), followed by the removal of water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine (49%). The removal of metals or minerals was reported by 45% of households, while about one-third (32%) treated their water to remove possible bacterial contamination.
2.8.1 Quebec part of Ottawa–Gatineau CMA 9
In 2007, 25% of the households in the Ottawa–Gatineau CMA were on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. 10 About eight out of ten (81%) had a municipal water supply. Of these households, slightly more than half (53%) reported they drank primarily tap water, while 36% drank primarily bottled water. The remainder reported they drank both tap and bottled water equally.
2.8.2 Ontario part of Ottawa–Gatineau CMA
Three-quarters of the households in the Ottawa–Gatineau CMA were on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River in 2007. 11 Almost 9 out of 10 (89%) had a municipal water supply. Two-thirds of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, while 22% said they drank primarily bottled water. The remaining 11% reported they drank both tap and bottled water equally; bringing the total percentage of households that had a municipal water supply and drank it to 78%.
More than half (55%) of the households that drank tap water from a municipal water supply treated the water prior to consumption, with 38% having used a jug filter. Almost three-quarters (72%) of those households that treated their water did so to improve its appearance, taste or odour. Forty-five percent treated their water to remove water treatment chemicals, while 42% did so to remove metals or minerals. Almost one-third (32%) indicated possible bacterial contamination as the reason they treated their water.
2.9 Toronto CMA
Ninety-six percent of households in the most populous CMA in Canada, Toronto, reported that they had a municipal water supply in 2007. Slightly more than half (53%) of these households indicated they drank primarily tap water, while almost a third (32%) reported drinking primarily bottled water. Fourteen percent reported drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
Of those households that drank tap water, most (70%) treated their water prior to drinking it, with jug filters being the most common form of treatment (44%). Fifteen percent of tap water drinkers reported boiling their water in order to make it safe to drink at some point during the twelve months prior to answering the survey.
Sixty-one percent of households that treated their water did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour. Almost half (49%) treated their water to remove water treatment chemicals, while a similar share (46%) were attempting to remove minerals and metals. Forty-nine percent of households in the Toronto CMA that treated their water did so because of possible bacterial contamination.
2.10 London CMA
In 2007, 90% of the households in the London CMA had a municipal water supply. Just over 6 out of 10 (61%) of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, 28% reported the drank primarily bottled water and about 10% reported drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
More than half (53%) of the households that drank tap water treated their water prior to consumption. One-third (33%) of these households used a jug filter to treat their water, while about 18% used an on-tap filter or purifier.
Of those households that treated their tap water prior to drinking it, more than half (57%) did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour of the water. Forty percent treated their water to remove water treatment chemicals and 36% treated their water to remove metals or minerals. About 31% treated their water because of concerns about possible bacterial contamination.
2.11 Winnipeg CMA
Ninety-four percent of the households in the Winnipeg CMA had a municipal water supply in 2007. Half of these households reported drinking primarily tap water, while 41% indicated they drank primarily bottled water. Slightly less than 1 in 10 (9%) reported they drank both tap and bottled water equally.
More than half of the households that drank tap water (55%) treated their water prior to drinking it, with 38% using a jug filter. About 12% of households that drank tap water used an on-tap filter to treat their water.
Aesthetic reasons (appearance, taste or odour) were the most frequently reported reason tap water drinkers treated their water, with 74% reporting it. Half of the households that treated their water did so to remove water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine. Forty-four percent treated their water to remove possible bacterial contamination and about one-third (32%) treated their water to remove metals or minerals.
2.12 Regina CMA
In 2007, all of the responding households in the Regina CMA reported having municipally-supplied water. Six out of ten households reported that they drank primarily tap water, while 28% drank primarily bottled water. Of those households that drank tap water, just over six out of ten (61%) treated their water, with 40% using a jug filter.
Sixty-eight percent of the households that treated their water did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour and 38% treated the water to remove water treatment chemicals. Slightly more than half (52%) of those households that treated their water before drinking it did so to remove possible bacterial contamination.
2.13 Calgary CMA
Ninety-four percent of the households in the Calgary CMA had a municipal water supply in 2007. Sixty-five percent of these households reported drinking primarily tap water. Just over one-quarter (26%) drank primarily bottled water and 9% reported they drank both tap and bottled water equally.
Sixty-three percent of the households that drank tap water treated the water prior to drinking it. Almost half (46%) used a jug filter to purify their water, while 12% used an on-tap filter.
Aesthetic reasons (appearance, taste or odour) were the most commonly cited reason households treated their tap water, with 65% reporting it. Fifty-six percent treated their water to remove water treatment chemicals such as chlorine, while 44% did so to remove metals or minerals. Almost half (49%) treated their municipally-supplied tap water to remove possible bacterial contamination.
2.14 Edmonton CMA
Nineteen out of twenty (95%) households in the Edmonton CMA had a municipal water supply in 2007. Sixty-three percent of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, 26% reported they drank primarily bottled water and 11% reported drinking both tap and bottled water equally.
Slightly less than half (48%) of those that drank tap water indicated they treated their water prior to using it. Almost one-third (32%) of households that drank tap water used a jug filter to treat it and about one in ten used an on-tap filter or purifier.
The removal of water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine, was the most frequently reported reason for treatment, with more than half (54%) indicating it. Half of the households that treated their tap water did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour, while slightly less than half (48%) treated their water to address possible bacterial contamination. Forty-six percent of households treated their water to remove metals or minerals
2.15 Vancouver CMA
Almost all of the households in the Vancouver CMA (98%) had a municipal water supply in 2007. Slightly less than 7 out of 10 (69%) of these households drank primarily tap water; 24% drank primarily bottled water; and 7% drank both tap and bottled water equally.
Of those households that drank tap water, two-thirds (67%) treated their water prior to consuming it. Thirty-five percent indicated they used a jug filter; 14% used an on-tap filter or purifier; and about 5% used a filter or purifier on the main supply pipe. In the twelve months prior to the respondent's interview, 28% reported they boiled their water in order to make it safe to drink.
Water quality advisories in Vancouver
Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of drinking water. In the fall of 2006, the turbidity levels of municipally-supplied water in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) reached record levels as a result of extremely heavy rainfall upstream of the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs. As turbidity increases, so too does the risk of gastro-intestinal illness from consuming the affected water. The GVRD Medical Health Officers issued an advisory to use bottled water or boiled water until the conditions improved.
A similar rainfall event occurred in December 2007, while the 2007 survey was being conducted, however no boil water advisory was issued.
More than half (55%) of the households that treated their water did so to remove possible bacterial contamination. As well, half of the households that treated their tap water did so to improve the appearance, taste or odour. One out of two households in the Vancouver CMA that treated their tap water did so to remove water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine. Forty percent of households treated their water to remove metals or minerals.
2.16 Victoria CMA
In 2007, 94% of households in the Victoria CMA had a municipal water supply. Three-quarters of these households reported they drank primarily tap water, while about 17% reported drinking primarily bottled water.
Of the households that drank tap water, 46% reported they treated their water prior to using it. Jug filters were used by 29% of tap water drinking households.
Almost 6 out of 10 (59%) of households that treated their water did so to improve the aesthetic characteristics (appearance, taste, and odour), while 45% did so to remove water treatment chemicals, such as chlorine. More than 4 out of 10 (43%) treated their water to remove possible bacterial contamination.
3 Conclusion
Despite having safe, clean drinking water supplies available to them, 12 many Canadian households choose to drink bottled water, even though the cost per litre is many times that of the water from their taps.
Of the CMAs profiled, Saskatoon, Victoria and Halifax had the highest rates of households that used primarily tap water (76%, 75% and 73%, respectively), while households in the Winnipeg, Toronto and Quebec CMAs were least likely to have used primarily tap water (50%, 53% and 59%, respectively).
Even among those households that chose to drink their tap water, many felt the need to treat it before drinking because of concerns about the taste, odour or appearance of the water, the removal of water treatment chemicals or metals and minerals, or worries about bacterial contamination.
Although municipal and non-municipal water users treated their tap water at roughly the same rate (56% and 57%, respectively), how they treat their water differs significantly. Municipal water users were much more likely to treat their water using a jug filter than non-municipal water users (35% compared to 18%), while non-municipal water users were much more likely to use a filter or purifier on the main supply pipe than municipal water users (31% compared to 6%).
Of those CMAs profiled in this report, households in the Winnipeg CMA reported that they treated their tap water for aesthetic reasons more than any other, while those in the Saskatoon CMA reported the removal of water treatment chemicals. Households within the Vancouver CMA most often reported that the reason for treatment was due to concerns about bacterial contamination (see text box "Water quality advisories in Vancouver").
- Date modified: