Aquatics & Aging Infrastructure: Part 3

September 4, 2025

Joyce Fromson Pool, University of Manitoba with SCUBA divers.

In Part 1 of this series we looked at the general state of aquatic facilities in Canada. In Part 2 we used Manitoba as a case study for the cause for concern. With approximately 10% of Manitoba's swimming facilities currently closed (some permanently) it would seem to provide a helpful illustration of the current national situation on a more local scale. With this installment, we start to look at solutions, or at least ways to approach, the problem of aging aquatic infrastructure in Canada.

I have to begin this segment by stating very clearly that I am not an engineer. None of the following information or suggestions should be taken as technical advice for purposes of immediate implementation without further professional review. My expertise is derived from my many years of experience in the aquatic sector and the multitude of different facilities I have worked in.

So, how do we fix the problem of aging infrastructure in the aquatics sector? To start off, we need to realize that this is a complex situation, and one with no easy solutions. To get a handle on the current situation of facilities closing down (temporarily or permanently) will require cross-sector and multi-level partnerships between stakeholders. This will include all levels of government, universities, sports groups, and the wider public, to name but a few.

Most public aquatic facilities in Canada are operated by municipalities, non-profit agencies, or universities. All of these agencies have been experiencing greater financial stresses over the past decades resulting in more demands for service, with less revenue available to meet these needs. Funding cuts and freezes, tax freezes, and competing priorities for budget dollars are some of the many reasons for these financial stresses. The end result is that more expensive (to build and to operate) infrastructure like swimming pools is often neglected, or pushed back in the maintenance queue until something is "really serious" before dollars are spent. Unfortunately, ignoring problems in complex systems like a swimming facility often only pushes off the cost to a point where it becomes much more expensive (due to inflation) than the initial fix would have been, and/or it even becomes too late to salvage operations.

So how can each of our stakeholder groups contribute to the improvement of our aquatic infrastructure?

1) Understand the problem is complex and will require complex and long-term solutions

It is not one thing that has brought us to the point where many facilities are aging out and being shut down, and it is not one thing that will solve the problem either. Everyone involved needs to understand that there are many complex factors involved in facilities aging and being shut down. Equally, any solutions need to be long-term. Any new facilities built to replace closed facilities will also age and, eventually, close.

This is an important point that needs to be communicated to facility users and the general public. The average swimmer at a facility has no understanding of the underlying systems that allow safe swimming to take place. They simply know they can swim and want to continue swimming. If not politely and professionally educated on the scale of the problem and all the nuances involved (within reason), the default attitude of many members of the public will be opposition to any closure. With proper education, however, these members of the public may become the greatest supporters of a long-term and comprehensive solution to the problem of aging aquatic infrastructure.

On the flip side, the public needs to be open to understanding that just because they believe a simple solution is possible to a problem, that may not be the case. Over my career I have dealt with many complaints from the public at facilities I have worked at. The vast majority of individuals complaining mean well and just want to be able to use the facility. In most cases once a polite and professional explanation of the issue is provided to them, the complaint is de-escalated.

2) Understand the true costs of both construction and operation of facilities

Too often both the public and pool operators (municipalities, universities, etc.) underestimate the cost of an aquatic facility. Politicians and the public very often focus on the capital cost of construction and any associated borrowing costs/debt-financing the operator needs to undertake. This is certainly a valid point of concern, but overly focusing on this amount can have major negative effects.

I have witnessed facilities where adding a small amount (relative to the entire build) to the budget up front would have made a huge difference to long-term operations. Adding some extra space for behind the scenes operations can make maintenance much easier and be a major quality of life improvement for the staff. Making it easier for staff to maintain machinery, access potential trouble spots, or even be able to spread out operations pays dividends over the life of a facility, even if those cost savings are harder to calculate. Conversely, if you place your pump down a pit that requires a ladder climb for cleaning, and complete removal for major maintenance, or if you place filters in such a position that the only way to replace or upgrade them is to blow out an exterior wall, then that will cost you in the long run.

Similarly, I have seen new facility builds where operators were lauded for considering stakeholder input and providing much requested features, all within a reasonable capital budget, but where ongoing operational costs for the final build were not properly considered. Adding features like slides and spray points, or builds with different types of roof support create blind spots that facility lifeguards will have to deal upon opening. While a given design might be considered a "two lifeguard" facility due to bather capacity or surface area by the designers (and therefore initial operational budgeting is linked to this projection), a closer examination with a lifeguard eye may show double the number of staff on duty is needed to account for the blind spots. This can make a huge impact on long-term viability of the facility if ongoing operational costs are significantly higher than initially predicted. Conversely, if the initial budget plan is maintained in this case then safety of patrons now becomes a major concern.

3) Set aside contingency funds for both maintenance and replacement of facilities

No matter what type of facility is built or what ongoing maintenance plan is in place, aquatic facilities are complex. The systems required to circulate and disinfect the water to ensure cleanliness, along with the air handling apparatus required to ensure proper air quality, are mechanical systems that are subject to breakdown and eventual total failure. Indeed, in an aquatic facility the chemicals in use to achieve proper water quality are known to cause damage to other systems in the facility, even when used correctly. This means the facility will eventually wear out, despite the best efforts of operators to maintain high operational standards.

Operators should be setting up, and the public should be demanding, contingency funds outside of normal operational budgets be set up for when, not if, problems crop up. Additionally, as the cost of construction of facilities continue to climb, replacement funds also need to be considered. The municipality or pool operator that socks away money on a regular basis in a dedicated reserve fund for eventual replacement of a facility from the moment that facility opens is going to be much further ahead in 40 or 50 years when the question of replacement comes up.

4) Design facilities with ongoing upgrades in mind from the start

Already touched on in Point 2 above, facility designers need to focus less on the "wow" factor for the public and more on the nuts and bolts of daily operation. What design features are going to make it easier for staff to perform their jobs and ensure the facility can operate smoothly over the long-term? Has ease of access and ease of upgrading been kept in mind for all mechanical spaces? How are lighting and ventilation systems accessed when the pool is in operation, or can they only be accessed when the facility is shut down? What about storage space for supplies? Is there enough space available to allow everything needed to operate the facility upon opening to be stored safely, as well as additional space for future programming needs?

Many facility designs I have seen and reviewed are focused on providing spectacular visitor experiences, but fall down on the points above. For facilities running aquatic sports programs the design thinking always seems to be that the backstroke flags, lane lines, and starting blocks for speed swimming, or the nets for water polo will always be installed and in use. That is not the reality of most facilities, however. Equipment needs to be moved or removed for cleaning, to allow for other activities to take place, for safety, or any of a dozen other reasons. When that equipment is moved or removed it needs to be placed somewhere out of the way, not in the middle of the pool deck.

While things have certainly gotten better than when I started my career in aquatics, with cramped and hot mechanical spaces where you could barely turn around with bumping machinery, there is still a ways to go. Balancing the public "wow factor" with the ability to run smooth operations due to a concentrated focus on staff needs and ongoing upgrading, will help enhance the visitor experience, and potentially contribute to a longer life for the facility.

5) Design facilities with both the patron experience and maintenance/staff needs in mind

Related to our last point, the facility certainly does need to be appealing to patrons, but is it accessible for a wide-range of patron groups while also keeping staff/maintenance needs in mind? Features such as ramps and zero-depth/zero-grade entry points into the facility allow a wider spectrum of users to utilize the pool. Similarly, water slides bring out a wide variety of users depending on the type of slides installed. Lazy rivers with variable currents are appreciated by families and potentially even fitness classes using the pool.

These features definitely enhance the user experience, but when installed has consideration been given to ensuring that maintenance and staff needs are met? Do the features inhibit lifeguard supervision of the facility by blocking sight lines? Will this mean more lifeguards are required on deck to effectively supervise the pool, thus increasing costs? Are the stairs up to the top of the water slide non-slip and built to allow appropriate water drainage? If so, where does that drained water go? What about the bottom and wall profile of a lazy river installation; is it built in such a way that it can be cleaned easily, including being scrubbed for algae or scum build-up, or are their awkward angles involved? What about lifeguard sight lines or the ability of lifeguards to extract patrons easily from all parts of a lazy river?

6) Consult with all stakeholders about new projects

Open and fulsome consultations with all stakeholders need to take place when a new facility is in the planning stages. I say open and fulsome advisedly. There will always be vocal stakeholders that can command much more attention than their actual numbers account for. It is important that operators working to build a new facility reach out to all potential user and stakeholder groups in a proactive manner. Without proper consultations taking place the design of a facility can be compromised seriously, to the extent of facility usage never meeting projected targets because it does not fit the needs of the users.

Stakeholders to be consulted could include:

Aquatic sports clubs (artistic swimming, diving, speed swimming, water polo, triathlon, etc.)
Fitness swimmers
Aquatic fitness class attendees
Swimming lesson participants & parents
Local schools/school divisions
Teens
Families
Medical rehabilitation users (warm water, low impact, etc.)
Potential facility renters (SCUBA, local recreational camps, etc.)
Other civic/municipal departments (Fire, Police, Public Works, etc.)
Existing staff

7) Ensure clear and open communication about facility status

More so than any of my other points, clear communication should be part of all aspects of facility operations. This is especially true when it comes to the ongoing status of a facility that has closed for a period of time. If the closure is short-term and the cause is identifiable be open about it. The public will understand a facility closure due to a pool fouling if it is communicated professionally. They may not like the fact a closure has taken place, but they will be able to understand. Where a facility is closed for routine maintenance, again clear communication helps the wider public understand what is going on and the hard work put into the facility to keep it operational by staff.

Long-term facility closures for major maintenance are where a lack of communication can allow rumours to spread unchecked. If facility operators want their users and the general public on-side then provide as much information as you can, as often as you can. Hourly updates would be overboard, but providing a general overview of major maintenance tasks to be undertaken at the start of the project, and then weekly updates on how the plan is going keep the rumour mill in check. This approach by operators also helps build trust with the public. If you use this approach on an ongoing basis, the "bad news" of a permanent facility closure may be accepted much more easily by the public than if the news is delivered out of the blue. It may not seem sexy to talk about the status of tile repair or pump replacement, but delivering updates of these types provides a level of transparency that an increasingly cynical public is likely to welcome.

As the longest article in the series so far, we will leave it here for the moment. Provide your feedback through our social media channels. What would you add to this list?

Christopher Love
President
Wavecrest Aquatics Inc.