Not me

The facts, as we know them, are these. Wellington’s water is Wellington on the Lake’s water. It is drawn from Lake Ontario, stored in the water tower, and distributed to all Wellington residents. One water source. Wellington on the Lake owns and manages the pipes that distribute the municipal water through the subdivision.

This is what happened last week: An inspection of the water at Wellington on the Lake on Tuesday found coliform (a bacteria) present in the sample. According to Health Canada, no amount of coliform (typically found in human or animal waste) in water is safe. The private testing firm proceeded to advise residents in the subdivision to boil their water.

Then an odd thing happened. On Thursday, Shire Hall learned that someone was going door-to-door urging residents not to drink the water. The County issued a public service announcement warning residents of a scam, assuring them that their water was safe to drink.

Later in the day, however, Shire Hall walked back the scam assertion. The municipality acknowledged that there was contamination in the Wellington on the Lake sample—residents should boil their water after all. The notice added, however, that Wellington water—save for Wellington on the Lake—remained safe to drink.

On Monday, the County lifted the boil water advisory for the residents of Wellington on the Lake.

Yet, residents had questions: How did Shire Hall know that the water was safe in the village but not in Wellington on the Lake? The subdivision’s water source is the same as the rest of the village. How could they be confident it was safe? It wasn’t until midday Friday that the Times learned the answer.

The water had been tested at the municipal source on the day of the contaminated sample at Wellington on the Lake and found to be clean. Whatever was wrong with the water in the subdivision was the result of something downstream, not the source. But why only in Wellington on the Lake? It turns out there had been excavation near the sampling site earlier in the week, likely exposing water to the harmful bacteria from that point onward.
In the intervening hours and days, residents were confused, anxious for their health and frustrated by conflicting information. Wellington on the Lake is a community composed mostly of seniors—the folks most vulnerable to the risks of contaminated water.

So, what should we make of this episode? Let’s start by acknowledging that bad things happen. When operating a system as complex and varied as the County’s waterworks, shit does happen.

The important bit is how we respond. What can we learn, and how can we adapt to ensure the same things don’t keep happening?

We know there was a full-on breakdown in communication throughout the organization— on the operations level, admin, and governance. We know the water inspection folks and the County were saying different things simultaneously. We learned that the various parts of the Wellington water system didn’t coordinate or share information effectively. We know that critical hours slipped by, adding to the confusion and anxiety experienced by users. We learned the system is composed of many parts, and when things go wrong, fingers are pointed quickly—in every direction—long before solutions are sought.

But here is the thing: We need an investigation to find out what went wrong. Where did communication break down? And why? More questions: Shouldn’t the municipality oversee inspections of this distribution system? Are they curious about how that system is faring? Do they share information at all? It seems symptomatic of an environment where there is shared responsibility but isolated jurisdiction. It is the gap that responsibility disappears.

Is it tenable and reasonable for the several hundred residents in this subdivision to manage their own distribution system? Do they know the safety of municipal water is only assured at the edge of their community?

But who will ask these questions? Who will demand answers? Will it be Council? Maybe. But is it more likely this is all forgotten in a couple of weeks? That this story will fade from its consciousness?

The solution is as obvious as it is repetitive: Waterworks customers must push for a permanent commission comprised exclusively of residents—direct stakeholders—and staff to govern this utility, to look out for its interests. To provide explanations when things go wrong. It is not unique or even rare. Waterworks commissions exist all over the world to do this job—to oversee critical and complex infrastructure.

Most of Council—currently governing this utility— are not customers. It doesn’t make them uncaring or unhelpful people—but their interests don’t align with the folks who fund the system. Or those who rely on it.

Let the message from this episode be a demand for proper accountability for the water we rely on.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca