Decolonizing Indigenous Drinking Water Challenges and Implications: Focusing on Indigenous Water Governance and Sovereignty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See some comments and suggestions  in the comments to the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you so much for your insightful comments. We have taken time to address all your comments in the main manuscript.

Thank you

Reviewer 1

Decolonising Indigenous Drinking Water Challenges and Implications: Focusing on Indigenous Water Governance and Sovereignty.

The paper addresses an important research question  how to provide a basic commodity such as clean and wholesome water to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Indigenous rights are challenging and complicated. Indigenous culture and way of life includes the right to self-determination that questions the authority of the Canadian Federal government’s remit and authority.  At the outset it would be helpful to define indigenous people and what are the groups that belong to this category. Footnote references would also help and some literature on the subject. There are acute water shortages and there are widespread problems over pollution and issues about health. Community based solutions are essential and therein lies the problem, how to address these problems is not easy. Thus, building trust and confidence is essential – yet this is hard to achieve and challenging to undertake in any meaningful way. Water advisories are in place and there are few easy answers. This is because of inadequate funding, regulatory gaps and inability to address the issue clearly and according to an agreed plan or strategy. The research is focused on the many challenges facing the Canadian authorities. The research addresses water governance and indigenous sovereignty, potentially two conflicting approaches. This approach is very much based on seeing the problem of water from the perspective of the indigenous peoples.

The paper begins with a well- reasoned abstract and introduction. The challenge of reconciling two competing notions of governing is considered between layers of self- government and autonomy found amongst indigenous peoples and the more centralised and colonial versions  of governing found in the Candain government could not be more in contrast. The paper adopts a creative methodology  that is both grounded in theory as well as in the appreciation of community protection over Morther Earth found in the history and culture of indigenous peoples. The long standing and largely traditional way for decision-making is clearly not able to cope with many of the complexities of modern centralised government.  Pages 3-5 sets out the main elements at work and in evidence from research on the attitudes to water and nature found in the indigenous people.  In sharp contrast the shortage of water, and disputes about its quality and purity are at the heart of the disputes between the Canadian government and indigenous peoples. Clearly the lack of access to water and the existence of health inequalities in indigenous peoples are hard to reconcile or indeed address.

Pages 7-9 give details of the problems over water treatment plants, the way in which the Canadian government is said to take a modest and poorly crafted approach appearing to care or even honour promises found in Treaties makes painful reading. Underlining this analysis is the absence of trust and honesty and accusations of modern versions of old colonial approaches to problem solving.

However, there may be common ground. The most obvious shared agreement is  common recognition  between the Government  and indigenous peoples of the need for and respect for clean water.  Safe drinking water would seem to be uncontested as a necessity for life, prosperity and well-being. Page 10 make this noticeably clear. It is obvious that building agreements will take time, patience and good-will. That is an essential for the future. The pathway will be long and difficult and involve arbitration or mediation systems to build common respect and trust. Pages 11 and 12 articulates these goals and objectives.

The perspective of the paper and the research is built around studies of indigenous thinking and patterns of governing. Elders were actively involved in the research and they played an active role in the paper’s outcomes. The paper provides an important insight into the mind-set of indigenous peoples. Its strengths are that this is an authentic voice that needs to be heard.

 

Overall comments and suggestions

 The paper is  valuable but there are a number of issues that  should be addressed.  In Canada, there is a widely drawn  legal and political science literature that needs to be considered. The Canadian government appears to be addressing some if not all of the many concerns set out in the paper.

On the legal side , there are some positive steps from 2021-2023 in the efforts made by the Canadian government to address what is called First Nation concerns. Feedback is ongoing and the Canadian Government has repealed the 2013 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations because of concerns about the legislation voiced by indigenous peoples. It is clear from the literature that enhanced engagement with indigenous peoples has taken place and there is pending legislation in draft ( April 2023) to address many of the concerns.  This process has taken to September 2023. Participation has advanced understanding of the main issues- many of these are consistent with the paper. There is also a Safe Drinking Water Class Action Settlement  that is being reached since 31^st December 2022.

Details of the plans include achieving clean drinking water and providing funding, capital spending and also how to treat waste- water from First Nation Communities. The aims include protecting the sources of water and making funding sustainable. There are various documents and a draft Bill available from the Candain Government.

Since 2015 the Canadian Government has lifted 144 long -term water advisories and reduced the number of 269 short term drinking water advisories from being long-term. There are numerous , 948, water and waste- water treatment plant projects and 825 upgrades. Over $5,6 billion sent on improving access to safe, clean water.

There is also a large literature[1] available on decolonising Canadian water governance. One source of difficulty for the Government is that the OECD has a set of Principles on Water Governance. These may be fine in principle but arguably may make addressing some of the indigenous peoples concerns. One view is that Canada has to take  a more robust approach and  adopt a more critical stance. Thus adopting a more creative approach to the indigenous people. The broad question is what does it mean to decolonise water? The answer will largely depend on deepening the understanding of indigenous needs and finding a way to addressing such concerns. The paper should address the literature on water provision set out by the Canadian government and whether this is sufficient to address the concerns of Indigenous peoples.

Done: We addressed the efforts the Canadian government has made in addressing the water crises within Indigenous communities including Bill-C61. However, we also acknowledge the gaps that still exist with this new bill. See page 2.7, 13

Conclusions

The paper needs to include some material on the legal framework for reforms, the perspective of the Canadian government and the need for further research and engagement with indigenous peoples.

Done: We addressed the efforts the Canadian government has made in addressing the water crises within Indigenous communities including Bill-C61. However, we also acknowledge the gaps that still exist with this new bill. See page 2.7, 13

There is also a question of the intended audience for the paper. The paper needs to address the role of the Central government. It also needs for consider the critical question of how to decolonise water.

Done: Page13

The bibliography could be expanded to address the Canadian government’s current proposals for water reform amongst indigenous peoples.

Done: added references addressing water reforms in Canada

 

 

[

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is much of interest in this paper especially the research methods used, the evidence of indigenous people’s relationship with the land and water and in the findings emerging from the field studies. 
The reader are aspects that could be made clearer to the reader unfamiliar with the Canadian water governance regime. Eg what is a water advisory? What is the current regime which is unsatisfactory? 
There is repetitive reiteration of indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, but what is meant by these terms? And does the politicisation of water governance distract from the more pertinent themes that emerge such as health, gender, access to clean water, cultural aspects of water to indigenous people etc. At present the logical connectivity between water and sovereignty is not clear and repeating it does not make it so. Self-determination and or autonomy over the governance and control of water drawing on traditional knowledge, resource management and cultural practice supported by the evidence gained from the research would produce a more persuasive article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the English could be improved with some sentences shortened and missing words inserted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you so much for your insightful comments. We have taken time to address all your comments in the main manuscript.

Thank you

 

Reviewer 2

There is much of interest in this paper especially the research methods used, the evidence of indigenous people’s relationship with the land and water and in the findings emerging from the field studies. 
a. The reader are aspects that could be made clearer to the reader unfamiliar with the Canadian water governance regime. Eg what is a water advisory? What is the current regime which is unsatisfactory? 

Done: We inserted footnotes to define some of the key terms identified by the reviewer. We also provided a brief explanation of water governance in Canada and the reforms that have taken place.
b. There is repetitive reiteration of indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, but what is meant by these terms?

Done: Provided a definition of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination in a footnote

1. And does the politicisation of water governance distract from the more pertinent themes that emerge such as health, gender, access to clean water, cultural aspects of water to indigenous people etc.

Done: It does. In page 8 we showed how politicizing water governance can delay action. Particularly, government bureaucracy, delays the addressing of Indigenous people’s water and health needs. Elder 1 said this on page 8, they had to beg because all their calls went unanswered. Indigenous water rights fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (see page 2 the brief description of the water governance). The politicization of water governance impacts remote Indigenous communities like the one we engaged in this research. The community has been under long-term drinking water advisory (meaning they cannot drink their water because it is not safe) since 2007. This has impacted the holistic health including physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental. In page seven we show the mental health impacts of marginalizing Indigenous women in water governance. The statement of Elder 1 draws a vivid picture of how women have been marginalized and are now seen as not leaders. We also added a sentence stating this point clearly.

1. At present the logical connectivity between water and sovereignty is not clear and repeating it does not make it so. Self-determination and or autonomy over the governance and control of water drawing on traditional knowledge, resource management and cultural practice supported by the evidence gained from the research would produce a more persuasive article.

Done: Sovereignty and self-determination emerged from our research evidence: 7, 8,9, 11, 12, 13, 14. We have also added a few sentences to clearly show this connection

Some of the English could be improved with some sentences shortened and missing words inserted.

Done: made corrections. Deleted half sentence on page 14.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is important. However, the paper in its current form has several major problems.

First and foremost, the research states that seven community leaders were co-researchers in this process. However, only three are ever quoted. And most troubling of all, 14 of the 16 co-researcher quotes come from a Co-Researcher 1 (Indigenous Woman Elder). To me, this over-reliance on a single individual raises questions of representativeness of the findings.

Also, this paper would have benefitted from more background information. For example, the initial use of just the term "water advisories" had me wondering what was meant -- until the text used "long-term boil water advisory."  Then I realized this was about water quality not water policy (directly).  More to the point, some general data on the situation and to set the stage. Ironically, some of this seems to be found in Section 5 -- especially the information presented from Bradford et al. (Reference 53).

Additionally, it was unclear why information on the communities appeared to be redacted. As this is not a double-blind review, the redaction was not necessary to prevent the discovery of authorship.  However, it did occur to me that the redaction may have been to protect or at the behest of the Indigenous communities and peoples -- and if that was the case then I feel it would be appropriate to note that.

There are also issues with the presentation. Often the direct quotations of the co-researchers are often not made to stand out. Depending on their length, either quotation marks or blocked text would make it apparent when they are being quoted.  

There is inconsistent capitalization. Headings and themes are sometimes in title case (every major word capitalized) and sometimes in sentence case (first word only capitalized),  Likewise, it appears that words that are culturally important (or represent culturally important concepts) to the Ingenious community) -- such as Land, Water, and Language, and inconsistently capitalized. 

Overall, I think this research has an important story to tell. But how it is told must be improved.

Author Response

This research is important. However, the paper in its current form has several major problems.

1. First and foremost, the research states that seven community leaders were co-researchers in this process. However, only three are ever quoted. And most troubling of all, 14 of the 16 co-researcher quotes come from a Co-Researcher 1 (Indigenous Woman Elder). To me, this over-reliance on a single individual raises questions of representativeness of the findings.

Resp: We have added more quotes from other community members (co-researchers) to the results to ensure representation.

1. Also, this paper would have benefitted from more background information. For example, the initial use of just the term "water advisories" had me wondering what was meant -- until the text used "long-term boil water advisory."  Then I realized this was about water quality not water policy (directly).  More to the point, some general data on the situation and to set the stage. Ironically, some of this seems to be found in Section 5 -- especially the information presented from Bradford et al. (Reference 53).

Resp: we added the meaning of the term “water advisory” as used in our manuscript of right after the first sentence. Again, on page 3 we provided a brief background.

1. Additionally, it was unclear why information on the communities appeared to be redacted. As this is not a double-blind review, the redaction was not necessary to prevent the discovery of authorship.  However, it did occur to me that the redaction may have been to protect or at the behest of the Indigenous communities and peoples -- and if that was the case then I feel it would be appropriate to note that.

Resp: well noted

1. There are also issues with the presentation. Often the direct quotations of the co-researchers are often not made to stand out. Depending on their length, either quotation marks or blocked text would make it apparent when they are being quoted.  

Resp: We have indented all quotes.

1. There is inconsistent capitalization. Headings and themes are sometimes in title case (every major word capitalized) and sometimes in sentence case (first word only capitalized),  Likewise, it appears that words that are culturally important (or represent culturally important concepts) to the Ingenious community) -- such as Land, Water, and Language, and inconsistently capitalized. 

Resp: All sub-themes and major themes are capitalized. Culturally important words are capitalized.

1. Overall, I think this research has an important story to tell. But how it is told must be improved.

Resp: comment observed by effecting all the changes recommended.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is much improved. I still have a few minor points to raise. But the major issues, lack of background and over-reliance on the comments of one of the co-researchers, have been addressed.

Below are a list of the minor points that you should review.

* May want to directly note that “water advisory” refers to problems with the water quality  (Line 35).

* References may need to be renumbered so they are listed in the order they appear in the paper (see Line 46 and following). 

* There are a mismatched bracket and parentheses for one reference (Line 80). 

* The projected increases in population and economy (25% and 55%) is a bit confusing as written. Either the word "respectively" is needed or they need to be written separately (Line 113).

* You have identified the place studied as Star Blanket Cree Nation. Thus, there is no reason for "community" to still appear in brackets (Line 148 and Line 214).

* Unsure of citation for (para.9) reference (Line 155).

* Dates need to be written as ordinal numbers (Line 210). 

* Why not just say “Nine subthemes” -- rather than "About nine" (Line 245).

* Need a blank line space before Figure 1 (Line 265).

* Either there is an unidentified quote or inadvertently indented text that needs to be "fixed" (starting at Line 509).

 

* There is a bad page break on "Foot Notes" (which should be one word -- "Footnotes") (Line 799).

 

Author Response

This paper is much improved. I still have a few minor points to raise. But the major issues, lack of background and over-reliance on the comments of one of the co-researchers, have been addressed.

Below are a list of the minor points that you should review.

* May want to directly note that “water advisory” refers to problems with the water quality  (Line 35).

Done; made changes to reflect this.

* References may need to be renumbered so they are listed in the order they appear in the paper (see Line 46 and following). 

Fixed

* There are a mismatched bracket and parentheses for one reference (Line 80). 

fixed

* The projected increases in population and economy (25% and 55%) is a bit confusing as written. Either the word "respectively" is needed or they need to be written separately (Line 113).

Done

* You have identified the place studied as Star Blanket Cree Nation. Thus, there is no reason for "community" to still appear in brackets (Line 148 and Line 214).

Done

* Unsure of citation for (para.9) reference (Line 155).

Done: Changes made

* Dates need to be written as ordinal numbers (Line 210). 

Done

* Why not just say “Nine subthemes” -- rather than "About nine" (Line 245).

Done

* Need a blank line space before Figure 1 (Line 265).

Done

* Either there is an unidentified quote or inadvertently indented text that needs to be "fixed" (starting at Line 509).

Fixed

* There is a bad page break on "Foot Notes" (which should be one word -- "Footnotes") (Line 799).

Fixed