Climate change and water governance in Saskatchewan, Canada Open Access

The most recent assessment of the impacts of climate change on Canada indicates that water resources in some areas of the prairie provinces – Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba– will be seriously affected. Expected future climate change impacts on water resources include lower summer stream flows, retreating glaciers, and declining soil moisture, more flood events and longer and more severe droughts. This last impact is, perhaps, the most serious. These impacts will affect the general population and prairie ecosystems, and especially increase the vulnerability of the agricultural sector and the rural population as a result of its natural‐resource dependency, reducing the sustainability of rural communities and livelihoods (Sauchyn and Kulshreshtha, 2008; Henderson and Sauchyn, 2008). The area of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan is an area that is naturally prone to water shortages. Climate change impacts could exacerbate water scarcity in this dry land region, and could lead to new water management challenges, potential water conflicts and impair economic activities and development. Conversely, with strategic water management, a changing climate could also lead to new opportunities (e.g. extended growing season for diversified and irrigated crops).

Adaptation strategies to climate‐induced water stress are particularly critical in the semi‐arid prairie region, in order to reduce threats associated with scarce water resources and maximize benefits from available water supplies. The Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change (IACC) project seeks to develop a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the capacities of regional institutions to formulate and implement strategies of adaptation to climate change risks in dry land environments. This goal is addressed through a comparative study of regions at different stages of social and environmental vulnerability: the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) in western Canada and the Elqui River Basin of North‐Central Chile. The main objectives of the project are to identify the current physical and social vulnerabilities related to water resource scarcity in a group of rural communities in both basins and to assess the organizational capacities of governance institutions to address those vulnerabilities.

This paper focuses on the water governance institutions in one of the provinces covered by the SSRB, the province of Saskatchewan. It commences with a discussion of the roles that institutions play in defining the level of vulnerability of social systems– i.e. rural communities – and the relevance of governance within this institutional cluster. The second section outlines the structure of water governance in the province of Saskatchewan and describes the various water organizations and mandates. Finally, the paper provides insights of the successes and challenges of water governance to ensure the viability of communities in the context of climate variability and change.

The IACC project employs a framework characterized by a vulnerability approach, which is focused on the sustainability of communities and their susceptibility to changing conditions. Vulnerability is a function of both exposure‐sensitivity – the degree to which a community will respond to a change in climatic conditions – and adaptive capacity – the ability of a community to absorb, cope, manage, deal with, adapt, or recover from stress (Adger and Kelly, 1999; Blaikie et al., 2005; Ford and Smit, 2004; Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Smit and Wandel, 2006; Turner et al., 2003). Exposure‐sensitivity is related to the susceptibility of the community to a potential hazard and its geographical location and social and economic conditions. Adaptive capacity reflects the community's ability to manage current and past stresses, to anticipate and plan for future change, and to be resilient to perturbations. Thus, the vulnerability of a community includes both geophysical hazards and surrounding social conditions (Hilhorst, 2004).

The third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified a set of characteristics of social systems that influence their adaptive capacity. These determinants of adaptation “influence the occurrence and nature of adaptation and thereby circumscribe the vulnerability of systems and their residual impacts” (IPCC, 2001, p. 893). They include a range of internal and external assets involving the existence of economic resources, technology, information and skills, infrastructure, equity, and institutions. The adaptive capacity of a social system depends not only on the level and quality of each one of these assets but also on their combination and interaction among themselves to facilitate the sustainability of people and natural resources.

Institutions are important because they contribute to the management of these assets, their inter‐relationships, and of their inter‐relationships with natural resources. Institutions could be defined as a set of permanent and stable rules which define roles and procedures for people, determine what is appropriate, legitimate and proper, and, contribute to the development of common perceptions and interpretations (Buttel, 1997; Homer‐Dixon, 1999; Lauer et al., 2006; O'Riordan and Jager, 1996). Subsumed within this definition is the narrow concept of institutions as organizations. When institutions become highly formalized they normally assume an organizational representation. In this way, organizations are formal entities that embody the nature and processes of specific institutions.

Institutions always operate in a hierarchical context, where larger (usually public) institutions tend to shape the operational context in which local and informal institutions function. These local institutions could be highly relevant to ensure the adaptive capacity of local people and their livelihoods (Dube and Sekhela, 2008; Adger, 2003; Alcorn and Toledo, 1998; Berkes, 1998), but their subaltern role could limit their efficacy. The emphasis in this paper is on the role of public, large institutions in establishing conditions that reduce the exposure‐sensibility and expand the adaptive capacity of rural communities and their institutions, people and livelihoods. A well‐established literature identifies the fundamental role that political institutions play in organizing society and its relationships with the environment (Beck, 1992; Dryzek, 1997; Howes, 2005; Papadakis, 1996). Political institutions – formally incarnated into political organizations – are central to any discussion about vulnerability since they are characterized by a purposeful mandate, permanency, social acceptance, and a legal basis. They impose rules that define the nature of social relations and of the relationships between people and assets, as well as the relation between environment and society. In these terms, governance – as a political organizational cluster – is a central mechanism in defining the exposure and the adaptive capacity of social actors.

Water governance refers to “the patterns by which public power is exercised in a given context” ( Jenkins, 2002). As such, it is an inter‐organizational network defined by different amounts of political power and competing priorities and which involves government policies and actions related to water, encompassing laws, regulations, public organizations, and those sectors of the civil society that participate, interact with, or influence the management of water resources (Conference Board of Canada, 2007). This network defines the organization and management of the interrelationships between society and water resources: how much water may be used, by whom, and under which conditions.

To foster and build adaptive capacity to climate variability and changing climatic conditions, water governance must act in coordination with a comprehensive climate change policy approach. Such co‐ordination will allow water governance to integrate climate risks into its organizational agendas, policies and programs, and to design and implement adequate policies and programs (resource mobilization and allocation, and incentives and disincentives) that build coping capacity for civil society to deal successfully with the challenges of climate change.

To promote adaptive capacity, an institutional governance environment must have the ability to identify social needs and problems, balance interests (or successfully negotiate and forge agreements), and execute and implement solutions (World Development Report, 2003). To successfully identify issues, institutions must give stakeholders a voice, foster learning and respond to feedback. In this identification process, giving everyone an opportunity to participate is crucial. Otherwise, exclusion results in incomplete information and risks further marginalizing some people. Complementing this information input process is the successful resolution of interests in a balanced manner avoiding stalemates and debilitating conflicts. Lastly, the institutional environment must be able to credibly follow through on agreements by executing and implementing solutions. These are the aspirational key functions of an institutional environment promoting human well‐being, sustainability, and adaptation.

A complex institutional cluster is involved in water governance in the SSRB, involving federal and provincial agencies, local governments, civil society groups, and non‐government organizations (NGOs). Both the provincial and federal governments have a direct role in the management of water resources in Saskatchewan, as well as several civil society organizations.

The provincial government, because of its constitutional power over natural resources (Lucas, 1990), takes the lead role in the management and regulation of water. This includes granting access to water and, protecting and managing water quality and quantity on provincial lands. In Saskatchewan, the key ministries relating to water include the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (a corporation with responsibility for source water protection, water management and allocation of water rights), Saskatchewan's Ministry of Environment (which protects and manages Saskatchewan's natural resources and regulates municipal potable water and waste water systems), Saskatchewan's Ministry of Health and Regional Health Districts (which protects public health and regulates private water supplies and sewage disposal) and SaskWater (a commercial crown corporation responsible for providing water services on a fee‐for‐services basis). Saskatchewan agriculture is concerned with irrigated agriculture and encourages adoption of agricultural practices that protect the environment. Many other provincial ministries and agencies also have a vested interest in water (e.g. Sask Power for hydro‐electricity and thermal power).

The federal government retains responsibilities for water resources on federal lands (i.e. national parks) and first nations. The federal government shares responsibilities with the provinces on inter‐jurisdictional waters (flows crossing provincial borders, and transboundary flow between the USA and Canada). Responsibilities include monitoring and protecting water quality, and administering agreements to ensure equitable sharing of water. In total, 19 federal departments have some degree of responsibility for water management. The most important are Environment Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada. (A more detailed discussion of the SSRB's water institutional arrangements is found in Corkal et al., 2007).

Local municipal governments (with delegated provincial jurisdiction) play a key role in providing safe municipal drinking water to local residents, treating municipal wastewater, and approving local development and land use activities that meet environmental requirements. A variety of stakeholders (water user organizations, the agricultural sector, irrigation districts, industries and sector associations, NGOs concerned with the environment, and other special interest groups) participate, in different degrees, in water governance. The most relevant of these civil society organizations are Saskatchewan's watershed advisory groups discussed below.

The IACC project assessed water governance organizations and processes in 2007 in Chile and Canada. This paper is focused on Saskatchewan. Information was obtained from multiple sources, including public documents, focus group sessions, and in‐depth interviews with approximately 40 people connected to Saskatchewan water governance, including water users, associations, watershed and environmental groups, community representatives, and local, provincial and federal government agencies. Data about several organizational and procedural issues were gathered during the assessment: roles in water governance and situations of water stress, long‐term planning in relation to future climate stress, types of climate and water information collected by agencies, organizational and legal resources, links to water stakeholders, accountability, the type and degree of participation (integration and coordination) within the cluster of water governance agencies, mechanisms to support and satisfy water resource needs of rural communities especially during water stress, and legal instruments to facilitate water governance roles. All interviews were transcribed and coded by theme. The following discussion is based on conclusions drawn from collected information, focusing on the areas of long‐term planning and stakeholder participation in the water governance system of Saskatchewan.

Since their inception (1867 for Canada, 1905 for Saskatchewan), the federal and provincial governments of the prairie provinces, including Saskatchewan, have responded to, and facilitated, adaptation to climate variability with a significant degree of success. The SSRB has a wide variability in climate and historically has been prone to drought with at least 40 droughts recorded in the last 100 years (Marchildon et al., 2007). Organizations, such as Alberta's Special Areas Boards and the federal government's Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration were created after multi‐year droughts in the 1920s and 1930s to assist with agricultural adaptations in this drought‐prone region. Agricultural adaptations to the dry land region have included improved cultural practices (e.g. minimum land tillage for cropping to conserve water and reduce soil loss, establishing community pastures on land unsuitable for private development, irrigation developments to reduce climate‐risk). These adaptations have been essential in managing current drought exposure. The recent drought of 2001 and 2002 still had a significant economic impact on the region and country (a $5.8 billion drop in Canada's GDP), but did not have the same ecological impacts as the 1920s and 1930s droughts (Wheaton et al., 2005). In 1948, the Prairie Provinces Water Board (with membership from the federal and Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba governments) was created to facilitate inter‐provincial water management for the basin's shared water resources flowing across the provincial boundaries (Conference Board of Canada, 2007). This board remains internationally recognized as a model for addressing inter‐jurisdictional water issues.

More recently, and as a result of drinking water disease outbreaks in Canada (Walkerton in 2000, North Battleford in 2001, Kasheshewan in 2005), there has been a profound change on water management, water policies and governance arrangements. Following the principles of integrated water resources management recommended by the United Nations since 1977 (Wellstead and Stedman, 2007; Tortajada, 2003), most water governance organizations are attempting to manage and protect water resources “from source to tap,” with more transparency and in a participatory manner, involving all water stakeholders from water users to water managers (Corkal et al., 2007). In Saskatchewan, this has been achieved by active involvement of watershed advisory committees which have the potential to coordinate issues of local development and water planning decisions. These organizations include members of the local community who are becoming versed in water issues and the development of watershed plans, where issues with potential impacts on water resources, such as intensive livestock operations, landfills, industrial development, and others can be identified and recommendations made (e.g. source water protection plans). Consistent with this watershed management approach, Saskatchewan has recently been working with the federal government to enhance integrated water management arrangements.

These are clearly important historical successes of Saskatchewan water governance. However, new challenges must be faced and overcome in order to develop greater institutional capacities to respond to climate change.

First, there is an urgent need “to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the organizations and processes of water governance.” There is no doubt that the fragmentation of water governance among different levels of governments, agencies, and interests impedes setting clear policy objectives, policy implementation, and processes of monitoring and evaluation. Many of the respondents confirmed their perception that the cluster of water governance organizations has overlapping mandates, functions, and linkages, leading to confusing and unclear mandates and communication chasms (Hurlbert et al., 2008). Even many of the government staff that participated in the assessment had difficulties explaining the different organizational roles, linkages between organizations, and venues for communication and sharing of information. These findings are not new – unclear roles for orders of government and fragmentation have been repeatedly identified as a water governance challenge by many different assessments since 1985 (a few examples include: Pearse et al., 1985; Pearse, 1994; Banks and Cochrane, 2005; Bakker, 2007; Conference Board of Canada, 2007; Gordon Water Group, 2007).

There is obviously a significant challenge in terms of identifying and strengthening viable organizational settings and processes that identify clear roles for each one of the organizations and ensure effective coordination, sharing of information, and integration of action. New mechanisms may be needed for cross‐regional governance. Provinces may need to engage federal roles in new ways and participate on broader initiatives looking beyond provincial boundaries. Federal roles may need to find innovative ways of supporting provincial and local activities while facilitating national interests that balance economic, social and environmental interests. Attention will need to be paid to efficient processes as potentially cumbersome arrangements may bog down decision making.

The existence of an effective water vision that establishes clear priorities and a comprehensive policy approach could be an important contribution to resolve some of these organizational issues. However, Saskatchewan's vision and long‐term plan for its water resources is not clear to respondents. In fact, respondents had highly divergent and potentially conflicting visions of the province's water management future. One group called for a massive infusion of planning and financial resources to construct a water infrastructure system allowing for increased irrigation and opportunities for rural water pipeline distribution networks. Others criticized this pro‐development approach for its reliance on dams, constructed reservoirs, massive changes in water flows, and fears of negative environmental impacts. Government respondents attested to the lack of consensus on how water resources should be managed, especially in times of water scarcity. Although it was stated that domestic use would likely be given priority over industrial use and irrigation in times of water shortage, many questions about implementing such priorities and policies were simply left open. Strategies to cope with water scarcity seem to be addressed more as an ad hoc response to an extreme event, even though drought is a natural characteristic of the region. Since planning and policies for water scarcity are not clear, it is not surprising to find a degree of fragmentation within water governance institutions.

A second challenge involves “the development of a robust channel of communication between the local communities and water governance organizations.” Most of the rural people contacted by the IACC project felt confused by the multitude of organizations involved in water and water governance and the various mandates and functions of these organizations. They claimed that organizations did not communicate with each other or that their functions and roles overlapped, making the links between communities and governance agencies even more challenging and difficult. As an elder farmer stated, there was “too much water governance, yet not enough water governance,” an expression that clearly reflects one of the shortcomings of existing governance. The statement captures issues related to the confusion over the number of agencies involved with all orders of government, and the disconnection (whether perceived or real) between governance institutions and processes, as these relate to specific local watershed issues.

Many of the complaints from rural people are the result of an increasing separation between the local community and the provincial and federal levels of government, where rural people feel marginalized from the centers of power. In this perspective, politicians and government agencies are viewed to be both far away in physical presence and unavailable because of time pressures. Because of this, local concerns, challenges and issues were not understood by these distant, non‐local levels of government (Hadarits, 2007).

A positive development to overcome these cleavages between the rural community and governance has been the formation of local watershed groups. It follows a bottom‐up approach to governance involving civil society, which demands extensive and intensive interactions among government and local stakeholders who are expected to participate in the decision‐making process oriented to define the use and distribution of water resources on a watershed basis (de Loe and Kreutzwiser, 2007; Rahaman and Varis, 2005; Brooks, 2002; Figueres et al., 2003; World Water Council Water Action Unit– WWCWAU, 2003; Perret et al., 2006). As stated in the literature, this participation of civil society in water governance aids in achieving the sustainability of water resources (Brooks, 2002; WWCWAU, 2003) and improves the quality of environmental decision‐making (Hampton, 1999). The current vision of Saskatchewan's water resource management follows this approach using watershed management principles and engaging civil society. However, watershed groups and watershed advisory committees still require consolidation, integration and empowerment to be fully active and effective participants in water resource management.

There are about one dozen watershed advisory groups operating within the province under the direction of the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority and already most of these groups have completed a source water protection plan for their watershed. Their conditions of operation for these watershed groups, however, are problematic: they lack any legislative authority to coordinate resources management in their areas, rely on uncertain financial support and donations, and for the most part rely on unpaid volunteer participation. Without legislative authority and the ability to tax or permit water use, the future of these groups appears uncertain. Watershed groups face additional challenges; maintaining continued volunteer engagement, determining future mandate (now that source water protection plans have been developed), undertaking watershed activities to correct problems, and even determining the optimal organizational size (e.g. representing the larger principal watershed, or groups representing sub‐basins within watersheds). These civil society groups have been willingly participating in watershed planning, but if the important roles these committees could play in broader integrated water resource management are not realized, the region could miss an opportunity to optimize its water governance institutional arrangements.

A third challenge is related to the need for a “long‐term and comprehensive consideration of climate change and adaptation on the governance agenda.” In the area of climate governance, as in the case of the governance of water resources, there is a variety of uncoordinated federal and provincial organizations and programs dealing with climate change, all of them taking place in the context of a political debate about the relevance of climate change and the impacts of mitigation efforts on the Canadian economy. The federal government's current climate change plan is three‐pronged: forcing industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, setting up a carbon emissions trading market, and establishing a market price for carbon (Environment Canada, 2008). As well, each one of the provinces has developed its own plans, not always in accordance with the federal effort. Currently, most of the focus is on mitigation issues, although it is already evident that Canada will not be able to comply with its commitments to the Kyoto agreement (based on a mitigation target of 6 percent below 1990 or 558 megatonne by 2012). As of 2006, the country's emissions were at 721 megatonne of carbon dioxide, or about 29 percent above Canada's Kyoto target of 558 megatonne (Environment Canada, 2007). In spite of significant funding to address Canada's commitment and the implementation of joint federal provincial projects in areas such as clean coal, carbon capture and bio fuels (Bollinger and Roberts, 2008, p. 16) the target will not be attained. As a result, new targets have been identified at the federal and provincial levels. Table I presents the Canada's and Saskatchewan's targets and compares them with the previous Kyoto Canadian targets.

Given that Saskatchewan is currently experiencing rapid economic growth, driven by a resource sector that includes the development of oil and gas, its aggressive mitigation targets will be challenging to achieve with an expanding economy and population.

Canada's mitigation measures are receiving considerable government focus in light of Canada's looming inability to meet Kyoto targets. Mitigation reductions, while important, are now recognized as only part of the solution addressing global warming. Increasingly, climate change adaptation policies and programs are being recognized as becoming more urgent. This is beginning to result in a variety of programs within governments, the academic community, and industry. However, there is an urgent need to systematize and coordinate this multiplicity of efforts (Burton, 2008). Some government support for adaptation to climate change planning is detailed in Table II.

As earlier noted, Saskatchewan has achieved significant historic adaptation successes addressing drought. However, the notion of adaptation to future climate change impacts is only in its infancy. Saskatchewan has been forward‐thinking in establishing the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, the first national research center focused on adaptation, a significant step in the process of producing a better understanding of climate change impacts and adaptation needs in the prairies (www.parc.ca). IACC research respondents identified several challenges yet to be overcome and managed in Saskatchewan's institutional adaptive capacity to respond to climate change.

Saskatchewan does not have a climate change and adaptation plan. In 2007, Saskatchewan's previous New Democrat Party Government issued an “Energy and Climate Change Plan” which was a cross‐governmental vision in response to climate change (Government of Saskatchewan, 2007). One of the highlights of this plan was the development of a province‐wide climate change adaptation strategy which included working with research organizations and supporting critical local research on climate change and adaptation. After the 2007 election, the government led by the Saskatchewan Party withdrew the previous plan, but retained the greenhouse gas mitigation targets. The Ministry of Environment continues to support green initiatives with its “Go Green” campaign, and a new policy is under development. The challenge of developing a long‐term climate change plan in Saskatchewan is significant given changes in political priorities. These issues are not unique to one province or government. Baseline climate change and adaptation plans somehow need to be comprehensive enough to span longer periods of time and remain a priority in spite of government change. Such plans also need to be flexible enough to respond to new information.

There is also significant work to be done around specific smaller‐scale, ad hoc policies and programs able to reduce the exposure to some of the particular impacts of climate change, such as droughts and flooding. There are, of course, federal and provincial policies and programs relates to changing environmental conditions which are not earmarked specifically in relation to climate change. Saskatchewan has a program of crop insurance and the federal government an income stabilization program for farmers. Existing programs are challenged with current short‐term climate risks. Should future climate‐induced water stress be more severe in intensity and frequency, even greater economic and social impacts are likely to occur.

The lack of a comprehensive climate change plan at the executive level of government detailed above is also replicated in the government ministries and crown corporations tasked with water governance. The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority does not have a climate change or variability policy or plan, nor does the Ministry of Environment or SaskWater. The Ministry of Environment has only eight people on staff with responsibilities related to the study of climate change; Saskatchewan Watershed Authority hired its first climate specialist in the summer of 2008.

Not having a long‐term comprehensive climate change and adaptation plan means the region is more at‐risk to climate impacts. The absence of a plan also limits the possibility of having a flexible institutional governance environment able to identify social needs and problems in relation to climate change and balance competing interests and execute and implement solutions. In the absence of a flexible, proactive policy response to extreme climate variability conditions, such as drought and floods, these situations are addressed in a reactive manner.

Saskatchewan has announced an agreement with other western provincial governments to a comprehensive water resource and conservation plan which would entail conservation measures, from low‐flush toilets and municipal “leak audits” to new technology to reduce the water used in oil sands projects (Wood, 2008). The current Saskatchewan premier has also expressed support for a national strategy on forestry issues relating to climate change and also plans to take a leading role in crop science relating to climate change (Wood, 2008). Specific details and budgetary commitment is still pending. Although these are positive developments, such plans are sporadic and still unable to provide a more complete framework for integrating climate risks into the programs and policies. To this extent, water governance in the province is not yet “climate proof” and governance institutions are challenged in attempts to reduce the vulnerability of stakeholders to water scarcity.

Framed in an analysis of institutional adaptive capacity and vulnerability this paper has assessed both successes and challenges of institutional adaptive capacity to climate change in the SSRB in Saskatchewan. Through interviews with a variety of people involved in the institutions of Saskatchewan water governance (from federal to provincial and municipal government employees, non profit environmental groups, civil society organizations, agricultural producers, and irrigators) the state of climate change planning is revealed.

While laudable plans for mitigation exist such as a planned regulatory regime, and technical solutions such as carbon sequestration and clean coal, it is acknowledged that these plans will fall short of Kyoto commitments and emissions will continue to rise. In this context, adaptation measures become even more important. Canada and Saskatchewan have achieved significant historic successes in adaptation to build communities and a viable economy for the Canadian prairies. The catalyst for much of this capacity‐building was the catastrophic climate impacts from sustained multi‐year droughts. However, today, droughts and floods are dealt with in a reactive mode, even though the region is naturally exposed to a wide range of climate variability. With present concerns regarding future impacts from climate change, it is critical the region consider establishing a long‐term and comprehensive climate change and adaptation plan. All institutions involved in water governance will need to participate and build flexible, responsive approaches, which include participatory planning involving all stakeholders and citizen engagement.

Positive developments in the area of integrated water resource management and civil society participation through watershed advisory committees have occurred in the past several years. The watershed advisory committees now require a clear mandate, a means for acquiring technical and financial resources, some degree of empowerment, and a long‐term government commitment to ensure their success. While challenging to achieve, federal and provincial governments would also benefit from engaging stakeholders in water management decisions.

Inimical to developing a long‐term comprehensive climate change and adaptation plan is the need for a clear water vision by all orders of government. Although the federal government established the Federal Water Policy in 1987, it was not fully supported with the necessary resources and never fully implemented. Climate change and adaptation planning for the semi‐arid regions of Canada will need to consider water as a focus. In the face of increasing climate variability, if significant water stress is experienced, no common vision for irrigation, water storage, and water use priority exists to reduce conflict and vulnerability of Saskatchewan communities. Learning from historic successes, proactive planning will be useful to avert or at least reduce climate‐risk before impacts become severe. The engagement of watershed groups and stakeholders in a more active role on integrated water management, will bridge concerns about linking policy to local issues, and will help build local adaptive capacity. Undoubtedly, effective capacity‐building and climate change adaptations will require adaptive governance institutions working with stakeholders towards a long‐term vision.

Margot Hurlbert, is a Professor and is jointly appointed in the Department of Justice Studies and Department of Sociology and Social Studies at the University of Regina. She researches in the area of adaptation to climate change, governance, and environmental justice. Margot Hurlbert is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: margot.hurlbert@uregina.ca

Harry Diaz, Director, is a Professor of Sociology and the Director of the Canadian Plains Research Center at the University of Regina (Canada). His main academic interests are in the areas of adaptation to climate change, environmental policies, rural community, and social capital.

Darrell R. Corkal, is a Senior Water Quality Engineer with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration and Environment Branch. His main research activities have focused on rural water treatment, and agricultural water resource management challenges within a changing climate.

Jim Warren, Research Assistant, is a doctoral student in the Canadian Plains Studies, an interdisplinary graduate program at the University of Regina (Canada). His doctoral dissertation is focused on the area of water governance and neo‐liberalism in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada.