General In most developments…

General

In most developments, the consulting engineer is hired by the developer, and that consultant's staff undertake site inspection. Norton's research over many years has identified that this is a clear conflict of interest (see Norton documents, various), since the inspector is being paid by the developer, not the City directly, and these two entities have vastly different objectives. The first national sewer guideline ("Reducing the Risk of I/I in New Construction", Norton, ICLR and Engineers Canada for Standards Council of Canada) includes recommendation 4.5.3, "The municipality's engineering inspector should attend site regularly". This clause is intended to provide some City oversight into construction activities.

Comments on the Summary section:

Removing the requirement for submissions for water taking above 400,000 L/d will encourage construction of sewers in areas where the GWT higher than is wise. Sewers are not designed to be leak-acceptable under a high GWT head. I added a distinction to above and below GWT to Ontario's sewer standards but it is fairly vague.

I disagree with the comment, "Removing the volumetric limit is not expected to change the effect of this type of water taking on the environment".

"The ministry will retain its ability to inspect water taking activities and ensure that they are complying with all necessary legal requirements" sounds wonderful, but I have never known a Ministry employee to show up at a subdivision site! Practically, this doesn't happen, so it's a false comfort.

"Ensure adequate protection of water resources and the environment". I disagree. Extensive research (Norton Engineering Inc.) indicates that allowing developers to self-regulate results in poor workmanship that hurts all Ontarians. For example, the newly introduced practice of flow monitoring all new subdivisions in Ontario, is a direct result of poor construction methods by contractors who are unsupervised by the regulatory body (e.g. City).

"A qualified person will still be required to prepare technical assessments, including a contingency plan that outlines measures to be implemented should there be any unacceptable impacts to the quality or quantity of water". This person is being paid for by the developer so has a conflict of interest (see below).

Part II

The use of "person" is unclear - it is used in different ways. In Part 2, Sec 4. (1), the person proposing the activity is likely a developer, while the Person in Part 2, Sec 4.1 (1) 5. needs to be a hydrogeologist

Section 4 (3), what about spawning/migration seasons, etc.? With no oversight this may be compromised.

Section 4.1 (1) 5., this person is likely the consulting engineer. Who is the person in 4.1 (1) 7.?

Part III

7. (1) 1. What if there are many adjacent groundwater activities, each from a single development? E.g. in areas where there are many new subdivisions. If each proponent only evaluates the impact his construction has on the GWT, who is looking at the overall picture? In places where many condos are going up, what might the impact be of all this water taking? What kinds of issues does the Ministry see now when PTTWs are submitted? How are those to be addressed in this case?

8. (1) (a) Regardless of qualifications, the person preparing the report will be working for (and paid by) the developer. This has been found to be a conflict of interest (Norton, 2017).

8. (4) 1., 2. and 4. Why only within the construciton site? Water takings in excess of 400,000L/d may cause impacts beyond the site. Why only "site specific" impacts?

8. (5) 1. When we say quantity of ground water and storm water, we risk having developers mix the two water sources to dilute any exceedences in either source. See also 8. (5) 4. iii.

8. (5) 3. It is illegal across Ontario, per Sewer Use ByLaws, to discharge rainwater or groundwater to the sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer should not be mentioned!

8. (5) 4. We should include a maintenance plan for control measures. Silt fence, for example, is rarely maintained by contractors.

8. (5) 9. Clearly defined triggers for the contingency plan should be explicitly required. What happens to wellhead protection areas (such as in Region of Waterloo)?

9. (2) 8. Add "disposed of appropriately"?

9. (2) 12. Is "the natural environment" sufficiently comprehensive? What about building subsistence (built environment?)

9. (2) 12. 364 days of water taking of >400,000 L/d? That's an awful lot of unsupervised water taking!

10. (1) 4. It is not clear how someone is going to be able to complain? Residents, etc. won't have access to pumping records or contingency plans?

Part IV

13. (3) 4. v. Refers to "person" again - do we need to clarify this?

13. (3) 7. iii. B and C - no, it is illegal to discharge groundwater to sanitary across Canada. If there are sanitary sewers available, there is likely a stormwater system in place - if only overland.

14. 5. Where are the checks and balances on this? A hydrogeo company will be performing the test, where is the third party (not in the employ of the developer) to identify if the applicable circumstances arise?

14. 8. That means we need to specify that the operations manual of such control measures is required to be on site and available to everyone, including City or ministry inspectors, etc.

end.