ERO # 019-6853 Regulation…

ERO # 019-6853
Regulation Amendment
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990

RE: Streamlining permissions for water takings for construction site dewatering activities and foundation drains

The rationale in 019-6853 is a sham, the assumptions flawed and the logic fallacious. As with Permit By Rule and related EPA proposed amendments, the proposal relies on weasel words and faulty logic to persuade Ontarians that the proposals have merit. They do not.

The proposal suggests a system of self-regulation and compliance that has no record to back it up. Given some industry’s history of infractions and fines, and their apparent willingness to consider such penalties part of the cost of doing business, the public is not reassured that industry can be trusted to keep accurate records and share water resources equitably with their communities.

In particular, in the case of the aggregate industry, raising and/or removing volumeric limits on water taking is not fair to those in a community who share an aquifer or recharge area. The requirement that each operation would properly record and accurately monitor its water taking isn’t acceptable, based on the industry’s track record.

The proposal suggests the importance of supporting the “ More Homes Built Faster “ initiative of the Ford Government. This deceptive slogan refers to an invented need for homes to be built at great speed. However, the housing crisis cannot be solved by rapid expansion of building on greenfields; the amount of aggregate estimated to be required for new builds is irrelevant once the housing crisis is addressed within city boundaries with infill and other urban build strategies. Therefore, shortcuts to accelerate the activities of the aggregate industry are not necessary at this time.

Like the related EPA policy and regulations, these proposed rules purport to serve an urgent public need. Again, this need is largely invented, and based on a push to build single family homes on green fields on the fringes of urban centres. Recently, with the Greenbelt pull back, and urban boundary restoration, the public has seen the flaws in this initiative.

Lastly, why would MECP prioritize accommodating industry over protecting the public? Why recommend eliminating public consultation? Industry must pay its own way, and must be required to protect the environment through explicit regulation and oversight. Public, Indigenous and municipal consultation is essential in granting permits to industry. Deregulation and self-regulation are not acceptable. Citizens cannot approve cutting costs for industry at the ultimate expense of taxpayers through damage to water sources, communities, local economies and the natural environment.

Furthermore, ongoing industry monitoring is necessary. Standards and protections cannot be enforced without proper oversight. Industries must bear the costs associated with their development. The burden should not fall on taxpayers to cut costs for industry at the expense of their own health and well being, or with risk to water sources and the natural environment.

Those who conduct oversight must do so at arms length. “Qualified persons”, when contracted by the proponent of a project, have an innate conflict of interest. Their reports are tailored to the client’s needs and requests. They often leave out critical information. They do not find what they do not look for. (e.g. failing to study the geomorphology of a site in seeking pit licensing where uranium in the environment has been clearly identified as a potential health and safety hazard.)

The past is prologue in Ontario, where the Walkerton tragedy is still top of mind. The MECP and its political masters cannot convince Ontarians that adequate environmental protection can be ensured, and that harmful impacts on surface and groundwater won’t occur, without regulation and oversight by arms length professional agencies, like the Conservation Authorities and fully staffed MECP and MNRF offices. Industry cannot be trusted to self regulate.

It’s too late for evaluation after the damage is done; foresight and careful planning are essential in regulating industry's impact on the natural environment. Restore the role of the Conservation Authorities in the oversight of our water resources. Ontarians demand this. Do not advance this proposed amendment to EPA regulation. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, biased toward industry, and ultimately poses a threat to the health and well being of people and the natural world.