ERO 19-6951, streamlines the…

ERO 19-6951, streamlines the already streamlined permit-to-rule framework;
ERO 19-6853, streamlines water taking for construction dewatering & foundation drains;
ERO 19-6928, which streamlines stormwater management; and,
ERO 19-6963, which streamlines waste management systems.

My comments deal with the above postings which seek to replace existing permitting requirements focused mostly on water with self-listing under the Environmental Activity and Sectoral Registry.

The proposed changes seek to make it easier for some companies and organizations to release stormwater, de-water construction sites, and release items such as asbestos, bio-medical waste, hazardous water, and liquid industrial waste into our receiving waters.

The shift to voluntary listing on the Environmental Activity and Sectoral Registry will not require posting on the Environmental Registry, so the public won’t know what is being discharged into our surface water or ground water, and there is no requirement to update Conservation Authorities or other riparian users about dewatering, which could negatively impact groundwater levels and quality, flood river valleys and wetlands, or deposit silt on wetlands or spawning sites for fish and other aquatic species.

PUBLIC REVIEW - Loss of Public Participation & Appeal Rights
The proposals will eliminate important public participation rights to scrutinize undertakings under the Environmental Bill of Rights,1993 (EBR). As well the EBR currently requires that government ministries post notice of a proposal to issue an instrument such as an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) on the electronic Registry and provide a minimum thirty-day comment period. Finally the EBR provides the members of the public with the opportunity to appeal instruments provided they are eligible. It is proposed that EASRs be available for public information on the Registry after the undertaking has been registered which is not proactive. All of the existing provisions will be abrogated if the proposals proceed.

MULTI BARRIER SCIENCE-BASED PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH
Proposed amendments to Ontario regulation 287/07, made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 would require proponents to self identify whether the activity is a significant drinking water threat without vetting or review by appropriate agencies.
As directed by Justice D. O’Connor, the Clean Water Act, provides a multi-barrier approach to protecting drinking water that establishes a process for developing enforceable source protection plans based on a science-based precautionary approach that protect municipal drinking water sources.

The justification to reduce the burden in these proposals negates the intent of the multi-barrier science-based precautionary approach and confuses the mandates for stormwater management and source water protection which are vastly different.

DIMINUNITION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ROLE
Proposed Regulatory Amendments to O. Reg. 387/04 under the Ontario Water Resources Act intend to make residential foundation drainage systems exempt from requiring a permit-to-take-water for water taking of up to 379,000 litres of water per day.
The current permitting approach is a tool for reviewing applications in relation to other water taking activities in the watershed and to make an assessment about cumulative impact.

The proposals will remove the MECP and CAs from carrying out cumulative effects assessments and cumulative effects records management (with no ministerial involvement either) as well as undermining the EBR by limiting public participation. It is unimaginable to consider that allowing a 700% increase of allowable water-taking without permit and cumulative effects assessment on a watershed basis could not have serious implications to watershed sustainability.

SUPERVISION, MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
The hallmarks of any sound approval and permitting system are processes and procedures which are transparent, systematic, rigorously prepared, reviewed and implemented, proactive, science-based, monitored for compliance, staffed appropriately and achieve the Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) of the Ministry. The SEV states that when the Ministry “… considers the development of Acts, regulation and policies, it will consider the cumulative impacts on the environment, the interdependence of air, land water and living organisms; and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society.” The Permit-By-Rule Process proposed by the regulatory changes requires self-registration on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry. No reference is made to the above-mentioned hallmarks nor will an EASR necessarily achieve the intent or content of the MECP SEV but, more importantly, no compliance process or penalties for non-compliance are provided.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

The proposals contained in ERO Postings 019-6951, 019-6853, 019-6928, and 019-6963 are deficient and should be withdrawn as they:

1. Remove ability of Public to participate and scrutinize undertakings proactively.

2. Remove Appeal Rights of the Public.

3. Negate the intent of the multi-barrier science-based precautionary approach.

4. Confuse the mandates for stormwater management and source water protection.
-2-
5. Diminish the historic and valuable role of local Conservation Authorities.

6. Do not provide supervision, monitoring and follow-up processes to achieve compliance to meet the MECP SEV.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:

I serve on the Source Protection Committee of the Quinte Source Protection Area and endorse their positions submitted under their letterhead and signed by the Program Coordinator. I submit the following specific comments and specific recommendations, which are bolded, to support the overall recommendations that the four proposals be withdrawn.

ERO 019-6951

As the result of serving on the Source Protection Committee of the Quinte Source Protection Area, I became aware of examples of proposed developments where the same 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. Thus, I request MECP to include a level of assurance that the information registered by the EASR is reviewed for accuracy by MECP staff, prior to construction. If the MECP staff review capacity is an issue, then refer the proposal to the local Source Protection Authority to determine/review the threat level when a proposal lies in a vulnerable area.

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. I recommend that the EASR not be allowed in vulnerable areas with a score of 8 or higher. This approach will ensure that the MECP is fulfilling its responsibilities to implement policies in source protection plans.

The proposed work may require additional measures to manage the threat as prescribed by a policy in the local source protection (SPP) that may not be known to the Licensed Engineering Professional (LEP) so that this EASR approved work would have been prohibited by the SPP if initiated by the municipality. Many municipalities assume ownership of works once the undertaking has been completed and thus are required to comply with the SPP. The completed work approved under an EASR and later is intended to be assumed by the municipality would then require a source protection approval which may 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 solution would be to permit the municipality the opportunity to deny assumption of the works if it
-3-
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.

ERO Number: 019-6928

Many municipalities assume ownership of storm water works once the undertaking has been completed and thus are required to comply with the SPP. If the proposed storm water work, intended to be assumed by the municipality which is then required to have a source protection approval, but 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 obliged to accept 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. If the proposed regulatory changes occur, the circumstances of my example will produce situations which run against the intent of the EASR process. These need to be addressed. For these reasons, I recommend that the MECP include a level of assurance that the determination of whether an activity is a significant drinking water threat will be provided to MECP staff, prior to construction. If the MECP staff capacity to review is an issue, then provide the proposal to the local Source Protection Authority to determine/review the threat level when proposed in vulnerable areas.

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 from 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. I strongly recommend that the Clean Water Act and associated regulations not be changed in any manner that reduces its effectiveness and level of protection for Ontarians.

Under the Clean Water Act, significant drinking water threats can occur in intake protection zones and wellhead protection zones with vulnerability scores of 8 or higher. I recommend that the EASR approach not be allowed in vulnerable areas with a score of 8 or higher. This will ensure MECP is fulfilling its responsibilities to
-4-
implement policies in source protection plans.

ERO number 019-6853

Ontario’s proposal to remove of the limit for groundwater-taking and to allow up to 379,000 litres of groundwater-taking per day without permit, while restricting public consultation and removing the requirement to notify conservation authorities, puts the ecosystem, human health, and municipal infrastructure at risk. The removal of groundwater-taking limit raises a question regarding compliance with the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (2005) that requires each named party to set threshold levels for new or increased water withdrawals.

As a result of increased demand for more housing in the Quinte watershed, there is an increase in competing demands for our finite resource - water. Groundwater resources are in high demand in the Quinte Source Protection Area. Water Budgets have determined 75% of water in the watershed is lost to evapotranspiration before it can recharge groundwater resources or runoff into surface water. In an area that is routinely subjected to drought conditions, it is a problem that no review of proposed works by either Ministry or conservation authority staff is required.. Conservation Authorities keep track of water budgets, contribute to robust community engagement, and with municipal authorities are essential in protecting water and natural heritage. Without a notification process, conservation authorities can no longer ensure the water budgets are up-to-date and accurate, nor can assistance to municipal partners be provided achieve their desire for increased water supplies. I strongly recommend the Director have the ability to prohibit or limit takings where water quality or quantity issues exist.

In 2019, Blu Metric Environmental completed an Assessment of Water Resources to Support a Review of Ontario’s Water Quantity Management Framework on behalf of MECP. One of the areas studied in the report was the Quinte Region, because of the historical drought conditions experienced. The report concluded that our area has very different geology and methods of land utilization compared to other areas in the Province. The main stresses on water quantity in the Quinte Region are increased population and businesses wanting to take more water as well as long periods of time with insufficient precipitation, which is expected to get worse as the result of climate changes. Further, the report concluded that groundwater resources are not sustainable in some parts of this area because the local geology is not good at storing water. When there are summer conditions or drought, then streams, lakes, and shallow private wells may run low quickly. Groundwater will not be sustainable in the future as a result of climate change. This is based on existing science, measured water levels and flow, and computer models predicting future climate conditions. Similarly, surface water will not be sustainable in the future as a result of climate change. This is based on computer predictions of how changes in climate will affect surface water quantity in the area. It is not difficult to forecast that allowing unlimited

-5-
water takings will result in unsustainable water levels for drinking water systems.

There are areas in the Quinte watershed where the groundwater is contaminated with numerous dense, non-aqueous phase liquids. In these areas, dewatering and foundation drains can lead to further spread of contamination, if not managed and treated properly. The lack of oversight on this situation is extremely worrying for public health as these locations are all near municipal drinking water systems. I strongly recommend that the Ministry to require permits for dewatering and foundation drains where they are located n vulnerable areas under the Clean Water Act.

For the many reasons explained above, I recommend MECP determine whether an activity is in an existing, or likely to be, vulnerable area or that additional management measures are required by MECP staff prior to permitting. If the MECP staff review capacity is an issue, then the local Source Protection Authority should determine/review the sustainability of the water taking when the proposal is located in vulnerable areas.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review. To reiterate, all four proposals must be withdrawn until the issues and recommendations I have made are addressed.

Sincerely,