After acquiring and processing millions of data points—and with our team deeply involved in every aspect of the 2025 freshwater health assessment—we’ve gained unique insights into Canada’s watersheds. From this work, we’ve identified four key takeaways, each with a clear action to advance freshwater health data collection, assessment, and management.

1 – We couldn’t assess 75.6% of subwatersheds

Insufficient data meant that we couldn’t assess 75.6% of sub-watersheds. For example, 53% of sub-watersheds had insufficient water quality data, and 68.9% couldn’t be scored for benthic invertebrates, making it impossible to get a full picture of freshwater health.

2 – It takes a watershed

The freshwater health assessment was only possible through collective effort. We gathered data from government agencies, Indigenous programs, community monitoring groups, NGOs, private consultants, industry, and researchers—each contributing to a fuller picture of freshwater health. Platforms like DataStream, CABIN, and the Columbia Basin Water Hub played a crucial role in centralizing and standardizing data, making national-scale assessments like this possible. Open-data initiatives strengthen the accuracy and impact of our findings. Every drop counts.

3 – Lost without a compass

The Watershed Reports’ ‘North Star’ is a unified, science-based framework for evaluating freshwater health across Canada. With standardized, credible data, we can better guide water management decisions, inform conservation efforts, and raise public awareness. Without a common agenda and unified framework, understanding freshwater health and protecting our watersheds remains fragmented and incomplete.

4 – We need better tools for a clearer picture

To truly understand freshwater health, we need more consistent, accessible assessments of fish, benthics, hydrology, and water quality—along with better ways to monitor regularly (and at a scale that makes sense). Embracing new methods, updated guidelines, and data from community science, industry, and consultants will strengthen the accuracy and impact of future reports. 

To drive meaningful change in freshwater health, we need bold, coordinated action. These recommendations outline key steps to strengthen data collection, improve assessments, and support the collaborative efforts needed to protect Canada’s waters for the long term.

Collaboration makes everything stronger, more efficient, and cost-effective. By investing in long-term programs, strengthening partnerships, and avoiding duplication of efforts, we can maximize the impact of our collective work. Open-data platforms like DataStream and CABIN, alongside Indigenous, community, and scientific monitoring programs, are essential for filling data gaps and improving assessments. Canada’s vast size and limited resources mean that working together isn’t optional—it’s essential.

Data deficiencies remain a major challenge, limiting our ability to track trends and make informed decisions. We need a shared “North Star” for freshwater health—one that sets higher expectations for monitoring, reporting, and conservation. A unified, science-based framework must guide freshwater health assessments at all levels. Standardized methodologies, clear benchmarks, and sustained investment in long-term monitoring will help ensure more accurate and actionable insights.

Hope drives action. While data gaps and water quality challenges exist, we must also amplify the successes—cases where conservation efforts, policy changes, and collective action have led to real improvements. Lessons from past successes—such as the landmark water protections of the 1960s and 1970s, including the Canada Water Act, the U.S. Clean Water Act, and binational efforts to clean up the Great Lakes—demonstrate how sustained investment, regulation, and collaboration can drive long-term improvements in freshwater health.

(If you’re interested in shaping narratives more positively, we like communication approaches like Hope-based communications, Conservation Optimism and Fix the News)

We can’t fix what we don’t measure. To improve freshwater health assessments, we need to better define what data is needed, where it should be collected, and how to ensure accessibility. Many historical datasets are still inaccessible due to paywalls, outdated formats, or lack of digitization. Supporting those who collect and manage data—through funding, leadership, and infrastructure—will strengthen long-term water monitoring efforts.

Scoring systems must be transparent, regionally relevant, and easily understood. Modernized guidelines should provide clear definitions of what constitutes “good” or “poor” freshwater health. Water health should be assessed at the individual waterbody level, with national-scale insights ensuring local data is contextualized and actionable.