Blog by: Elizabeth Kwofie, Communications Intern, CELA
In May 2000, seven people died, and over two thousand became severely ill after the municipal water supply in Walkerton, Ontario, became contaminated with E. coli.
This event triggered a two-year provincial inquiry — led by Justice Dennis O’Connor — into the causes of the contamination in Walkerton (Part 1) and the state of drinking water protection in Ontario (Part 2). The Inquiry revealed a disorganized water management system in the province that relied on voluntary compliance from municipalities that lacked expertise and resources. In the reports that followed, Justice O’Connor made 121 recommendations for strengthening drinking water protection in Ontario.
Now, 25 years later, we must continue to recognize this significant event and examine both the advancements in drinking water protection that it prompted and the remaining gaps in Ontario’s current drinking water protection regime.
Advancements in Drinking Water Protection
The Walkerton Inquiry helped introduce a robust multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety in Ontario and resulted in an overhaul of Ontario’s drinking water laws and regulations. It was the foundation for Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) and Clean Water Act (2006), which continue to regulate our water systems today.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was created after the Walkerton tragedy to ensure tap water is safe to drink. It sets strict rules for how drinking water is treated, tested, and monitored and holds the water system operators accountable. Its purpose is to keep the water supply safe after it leaves the treatment plant.
The Clean Water Act was Ontario’s primary response to the Walkerton tragedy to help protect drinking water at its source before it reaches treatment plants. It focuses on:
- Studying vulnerable areas to find out where drinking water is at risk.
- Creating local protection plans to reduce or eliminate those risks.
- Having conservation authorities or other local bodies report yearly on how well the plans are working.
However, the law only requires protection for municipal water systems, which serve about 80% of the population. That means rural communities using private wells or other non-municipal systems aren’t directly protected by the law’s mandatory tools even though they, too, might face serious risks.
Status of Justice O’Connor’s Recommendations
A review by CELA of the status of Justice O’Connor’s recommendations revealed that 65 of his 121 recommendations have been considered complete and continue to be implemented.
There are 3 recommendations that no longer apply because they were rendered moot or their goal was addressed through a means different than that described in the recommendation. There are 10 recommendations for which the status could not be confirmed due to a lack of publicly accessible information and data, and there are 9 recommendations that require further investigation before determining the status.
There are 29 recommendations that need improvement and 5 that are incomplete (i.e. no work has been done).
Alarmingly, despite the considerable improvements to drinking water protection that resulted from the Walkerton Inquiry, communities in Ontario — including some rural and First Nations — still do not have adequate access to safe drinking water.
6 of the 25 recommendations from Part 2 that were scored as needing improvement relate to small water systems and Indigenous communities. As a result, these populations are vulnerable to risks posed by unsafe drinking water. 2 of the 5 recommendations from Part 2 that were determined to be incomplete are also related to Indigenous communities, which Justice O’Connor recognized are provided “some of the poorest quality of water in the province.”
Current & Future Challenges in Protecting Drinking Water
Only two and a half decades later, it seems the lessons of Walkerton are at risk of being forgotten. Two recent enactments — Bills 97 (2023) and 23 (2022) — seem to go out of their way to undermine the existing water protection laws, policies, and agencies created to prevent threats to drinking water following the Walkerton tragedy.
Bill 97 directly attacks protections for drinking water sources authorized under the 2006 Clean Water Act. Bill 97 gives the Ontario government (specifically, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) more power to control land use through ministerial zoning orders (MZOs). These orders allow the minister to override local planning rules and fast-track development projects. Under this bill, the minister could use an MZO to bypass certain drinking water protection rules that are meant to protect specific areas (except in the Greenbelt lands) where drinking water could be at risk from pollution or overuse. This makes it easier to approve development even if experts believe the activity could put drinking water at risk.
Similarly, Bill 23 is a law that weakens environmental protections by limiting the power of conservation authorities to stop unsafe or harmful developments, especially in areas that affect our water and natural spaces. In simple terms, Bill 23:
- Allows building in risky areas, like floodplains or wetlands, as long as it’s approved under other provincial planning rules.
- Limits what conservation authorities can consider when deciding whether to approve a project.
- Stops conservation authorities from helping cities and towns review development plans unless there’s a special agreement (and Bill 23 makes it harder to get those agreements).
Remaining Gaps in Ontario’s Current Drinking Water Protection Regime
A recent report by Ontario’s Auditor General paints a troubling picture of the province’s commitment to safeguarding drinking water — especially for the 3 million Ontarian residents relying on non-municipal drinking water systems (NMDWS).
Despite the Walkerton tragedy, the audit of the regulatory systems that oversee NMDWS revealed that the province still does NOT have effective processes and systems in place to:
- Oversee all NMDWS and ensure their compliance with application legislation, policies, and regulations.
- Educate private well users about the risks of not testing or treating their drinking water.
- Identify and manage all health risks related to NMDWS.
In short, the report’s findings make it clear that the regulatory water system is not working as intended, and that this isn’t just a policy gap, but a real and present health threat, with the Auditor General emphasizing that this ongoing problem requires immediate action. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP), the Ministry of Health (MoH), and local Public Health Units (PHU) have accepted all 17 recommendations included in the report. But acceptance alone is not enough. The government must commit to timelines, and implementation must follow swiftly and decisively in order for Ontario to prevent another Walkerton-like tragedy in the future.
Closing Thoughts
Twenty-five years after Walkerton, the lessons remain painfully clear: safe drinking water is not guaranteed — it’s a choice. It requires strong laws, independent oversight, and a commitment to putting public health before short-term gains.
As recent legislation like Bills 97 and 23 chip away at the safeguards put in place after the Walkerton tragedy, we must all remember what was lost and what was learned. The Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts were born out of a failure to protect, and their protections must not only be maintained but expanded to cover all Ontarians equally.
To honour the lives affected and prevent history from repeating itself, Ontario must remain vigilant in protecting clean drinking water.
This blog was written by Elizabeth Kwofie, who was a communications intern at the Canadian Environmental Law Association for the Fall 2024 – Winter 2025 term.
Safe Drinking Water 25 Years After Walkerton
Blog by: Elizabeth Kwofie, Communications Intern, CELA
In May 2000, seven people died, and over two thousand became severely ill after the municipal water supply in Walkerton, Ontario, became contaminated with E. coli.
This event triggered a two-year provincial inquiry — led by Justice Dennis O’Connor — into the causes of the contamination in Walkerton (Part 1) and the state of drinking water protection in Ontario (Part 2). The Inquiry revealed a disorganized water management system in the province that relied on voluntary compliance from municipalities that lacked expertise and resources. In the reports that followed, Justice O’Connor made 121 recommendations for strengthening drinking water protection in Ontario.
Now, 25 years later, we must continue to recognize this significant event and examine both the advancements in drinking water protection that it prompted and the remaining gaps in Ontario’s current drinking water protection regime.
Advancements in Drinking Water Protection
The Walkerton Inquiry helped introduce a robust multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety in Ontario and resulted in an overhaul of Ontario’s drinking water laws and regulations. It was the foundation for Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) and Clean Water Act (2006), which continue to regulate our water systems today.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was created after the Walkerton tragedy to ensure tap water is safe to drink. It sets strict rules for how drinking water is treated, tested, and monitored and holds the water system operators accountable. Its purpose is to keep the water supply safe after it leaves the treatment plant.
The Clean Water Act was Ontario’s primary response to the Walkerton tragedy to help protect drinking water at its source before it reaches treatment plants. It focuses on:
However, the law only requires protection for municipal water systems, which serve about 80% of the population. That means rural communities using private wells or other non-municipal systems aren’t directly protected by the law’s mandatory tools even though they, too, might face serious risks.
Status of Justice O’Connor’s Recommendations
A review by CELA of the status of Justice O’Connor’s recommendations revealed that 65 of his 121 recommendations have been considered complete and continue to be implemented.
There are 3 recommendations that no longer apply because they were rendered moot or their goal was addressed through a means different than that described in the recommendation. There are 10 recommendations for which the status could not be confirmed due to a lack of publicly accessible information and data, and there are 9 recommendations that require further investigation before determining the status.
There are 29 recommendations that need improvement and 5 that are incomplete (i.e. no work has been done).
Alarmingly, despite the considerable improvements to drinking water protection that resulted from the Walkerton Inquiry, communities in Ontario — including some rural and First Nations — still do not have adequate access to safe drinking water.
6 of the 25 recommendations from Part 2 that were scored as needing improvement relate to small water systems and Indigenous communities. As a result, these populations are vulnerable to risks posed by unsafe drinking water. 2 of the 5 recommendations from Part 2 that were determined to be incomplete are also related to Indigenous communities, which Justice O’Connor recognized are provided “some of the poorest quality of water in the province.”
Current & Future Challenges in Protecting Drinking Water
Only two and a half decades later, it seems the lessons of Walkerton are at risk of being forgotten. Two recent enactments — Bills 97 (2023) and 23 (2022) — seem to go out of their way to undermine the existing water protection laws, policies, and agencies created to prevent threats to drinking water following the Walkerton tragedy.
Bill 97 directly attacks protections for drinking water sources authorized under the 2006 Clean Water Act. Bill 97 gives the Ontario government (specifically, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) more power to control land use through ministerial zoning orders (MZOs). These orders allow the minister to override local planning rules and fast-track development projects. Under this bill, the minister could use an MZO to bypass certain drinking water protection rules that are meant to protect specific areas (except in the Greenbelt lands) where drinking water could be at risk from pollution or overuse. This makes it easier to approve development even if experts believe the activity could put drinking water at risk.
Similarly, Bill 23 is a law that weakens environmental protections by limiting the power of conservation authorities to stop unsafe or harmful developments, especially in areas that affect our water and natural spaces. In simple terms, Bill 23:
Remaining Gaps in Ontario’s Current Drinking Water Protection Regime
A recent report by Ontario’s Auditor General paints a troubling picture of the province’s commitment to safeguarding drinking water — especially for the 3 million Ontarian residents relying on non-municipal drinking water systems (NMDWS).
Despite the Walkerton tragedy, the audit of the regulatory systems that oversee NMDWS revealed that the province still does NOT have effective processes and systems in place to:
In short, the report’s findings make it clear that the regulatory water system is not working as intended, and that this isn’t just a policy gap, but a real and present health threat, with the Auditor General emphasizing that this ongoing problem requires immediate action. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP), the Ministry of Health (MoH), and local Public Health Units (PHU) have accepted all 17 recommendations included in the report. But acceptance alone is not enough. The government must commit to timelines, and implementation must follow swiftly and decisively in order for Ontario to prevent another Walkerton-like tragedy in the future.
Closing Thoughts
Twenty-five years after Walkerton, the lessons remain painfully clear: safe drinking water is not guaranteed — it’s a choice. It requires strong laws, independent oversight, and a commitment to putting public health before short-term gains.
As recent legislation like Bills 97 and 23 chip away at the safeguards put in place after the Walkerton tragedy, we must all remember what was lost and what was learned. The Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts were born out of a failure to protect, and their protections must not only be maintained but expanded to cover all Ontarians equally.
To honour the lives affected and prevent history from repeating itself, Ontario must remain vigilant in protecting clean drinking water.
This blog was written by Elizabeth Kwofie, who was a communications intern at the Canadian Environmental Law Association for the Fall 2024 – Winter 2025 term.
Share: