Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments for streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), ERO Number 019-6928. The following comments/questions are a compilation of comments from Quinte Source Protection staff, Source Protection Committee (SPC) members, and the SPC Chair.

Overall, we are very concerned with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP) proposal to expand the permit by rule regime to include waste management systems; stormwater management; and water-taking for construction sites dewater activities and foundation drains.

Our concern generally lies in the fact the MECP will no longer undertake an up-front detailed review of applications related to the specified activities, thereby weakening regulatory oversight. The specified activities, which have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the natural environment and human health will no longer be subject to either government or public scrutiny prior to commencing operation in Ontario. This concern is compounded in source protection vulnerable areas where many of these ‘low risk’ activities are considered significant drinking water threats to the municipal drinking water. These proposed amendments are very reminiscent of the lack of Ministerial oversight that led to the Walkerton Tragedy. The parallels are concerning and cannot be ignored under the Ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) vision of Maintaining core work that provides strong environmental protections to safeguard our air, land, water and climate for all Ontarians today and in the future.

It is unclear whether there will be any assurances the proponent has registered correctly or not. When originally creating policies for source protection plans, source protection authority staff were directed by the Ministry to create policies for every potential significant drinking water threat. The proposed approach contradicts the direction received from MECP and removes the review of potential significant threats which may need additional measures to address the potential contamination threat. While we understand the Ministry’s position that Licensed Engineering Practitioners should be truthful and accurate, Quinte has many examples of proposed development where a Professional Engineer argued both sides of an argument: first on behalf of a municipality and then later argue the contradicting side on behalf of a developer.

Many municipalities assume ownership of works once the undertaking has been completed and thus are required to comply with the SPP. If the proposed work, intended to be assumed by the municipality which then requires a source protection approval, is not be known to the LEP at the time of registering on the EASR, since the LEP is not required to consult, the result is the assumed work is prohibited by the SPP. Once this work is in place or constructed, the municipality is “stuck” with the cost of remedial work to comply with the provisions of the SPP thus placing extra operating and maintenance costs for additional protections. The municipality should be able to deny assumption of the works if it considers the proposal to not be in the public interest. To overcome this problem, the LEP should be required to consult with the impacted municipalities and the SPA/SPC. The reviewing agencies should be provided with a specific timeframe to review the proposed work. The circumstances of this example produce situations which run against the intent of the EASR process and needs to be addressed.

For these reasons, we implore MECP to include a level of assurance that the determination of whether an activity is a significant drinking water threat is received by MECP staff, prior to construction. If the MECP capacity is an issue, perhaps having the local Source Protection Authority determine/review the threat level when proposed in vulnerable areas could be used.

Stormwater management plays a significant role in building climate resilient communities, protecting water quality and quantity, and mitigating risks to drinking water sources. However, the absence of a supporting legislative framework while minimizing the authority of regulatory tools undermines this potential. The mandate for stormwater management is extremely different than the mandate of source water protection. As these regulations are not duplicative, the justification to reduce the burden in these proposals negates the nature of the multi-barrier approach. We highly recommend that the Clean Water Act and associated regulations not be changed in any manner that reduces its effectiveness and level of protection for the public of Ontario.

Under the Clean Water Act, significant drinking water threats can occur in intake protection zones and wellhead protection zones with a vulnerability score of 8 or higher. We suggest that the EASR not be allowed in vulnerable areas with a score of 8 or higher. This approach will ensure MECP is fulfilling their responsibilities to implement policies in source protection plans.

Thank you again for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments for streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) (ERO Registry Number: 019-6928). For all of the above reasons, we request MECP not proceed with the proposal until all the concerns addressed by Ontarians and all consultation requirements are met. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me