Assessing Design and Funding Methods of Water Infrastructure for Saskatchewan First Nations

• Main Author: Vogel, Timothy 1991-
• Other Authors: McPhedran, Kerry, Fonstad, Terry, Bharadwaj, Lalita, Peng, Jian, Boulfiza, Mohamed, Belcher, Ken
• Format: Thesis
• Language: unknown
• Published: University of Saskatchewan 2019
• Subjects: Drinking water; First Nations; Canada
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10388/11772

Many water systems on First Nations in Saskatchewan are at risk of not being able to consistently meet water quality guidelines, which negatively impacts human health. It was the goal of my thesis to assess design and funding methods for water infrastructure projects on First Nations. It was important that this research was informed by community values and priorities gained from discussions with Elders, interviews with water treatment officers, and activities with elementary and high school students. A scoping review looked for existing literature on water infrastructure projects that involved the community in the design process, termed ‘co-design’. Of 1,551 articles searched, only 13 were found using the search terms (and synonyms): “water”, “co-design”, “Indigenous communities”, “infrastructure”, and “Canada”. A common definition of co-design and clear process is required to trend towards community informed design. Co-design as a process for water infrastructure in Indigenous communities encompasses the cultural, traditional, and spiritual values associated with water from the community’s worldview along with the environmental and technical conditions from an engineering standpoint. The increased involvement for this process requires extra funding, which is difficult in communities that are already restricted by rigid funding frameworks. Communities prefer a centralized system (piped water) to reduce the likelihood of contamination and water quantity rationing. The preference for a centralized system is prevented by a funding formula that does not provide the higher capital expense of this infrastructure. However, the formula can be expanded beyond capital investment and regular operation and maintenance to include costs associated with human health. The installation of both decentralized and centralized systems were quoted and compared for an example community of 100 homes (500 people). The approximate capital cost of a centralized system and decentralized system were found to be $ 3,512,000 and $ 1,365,000, respectively. However, the extra costs associated with the decentralized system were $ 570,000 per year, which covers the greater capital investment for a centralized system in under 5 years. The provision of safe drinking water for human health justifies a greater capital investment on its own, but the inclusion of other variables in the funding formula suggests that it is economically feasible as well.