As it is MOE’s legislated…

As it is MOE’s legislated responsibility to look after all drinking water (not just drinking water in communal facilities), I am confident that these concerns will be addressed and satisfied. 

Background and Data

The relevant property lies within a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) according to the Source Protection Plan (SPP). The municipal wells that are protected through this plan provide 7% of the Region of Waterloo’s integrated drinking water system (2016 data).

Recently the government has spent millions of dollars on their wellhead protection program  protecting groundwater that may impact municipal water supplies. What about the protection of the rural groundwater supplies? There are a large number of private well owners who surround said property.

Residents have data showing that their private wells exceeded drinking water standards and now levels exceed the ODWO. 

The current application to rezone said property to aggregate extractive has identified nitrate levels as high as 15mg/L drawn from onsite shallow wells in the hydrogeological study (attached). 

More residents surrounding the proposed pit are sampling their water for nitrates as well. Please let me know if you would like me to share these results as they become available. 

Recent Manure Handling at 1922-1084 Witmer Rd

Was the emptying of the old manure storage facilities on the surrounding farmland an attempt to use the manure as fertilizer or a waste management action?  Were there considerations made for the rate at which it was spread to avoid potential impacts on surrounding wells? The hydrogeological study hired by the applicant mentions that nitrates applied to the sandy soil would pass right through into the groundwater (and potentially impact down gradient neighboring rural water wells). Was the nitrogen concentration of the manure ever measured or OMAF contacted to determine or even asked to suggest an acceptable application rate?  Sometimes it is easier for individuals to ask for forgiveness once a problem develops than to ask for permission and act in a proactive way. And it is very easy to state that somebody or something else must have caused the rise in nitrates. For those experiencing a decrease in water quality, these recent actions have led to a loss in confidence that the owner of this property will follow good farming practices and good land stewardship going forward. Who takes responsibility for controlling this practice or monitoring it?

Urgent Concern:

We are aware that there is manure currently piled on said property with plans to spread in the spring. Is this not going to further reduce the safety of the drinking water below this property and the private wells surrounding it? 

Although animals have not been on this site for 25-30 years, the nutrients have remained on site. Who is responsible for regulating the application of the existing nutrients if the Nutrient Management Act does apply? 

According to the data from the hydrogeological study and local residents’ private wells, this site can not take any additional nutrient application and maintain the safety of our communities (and potentially Region of Waterloo’s) drinking water.

Existing Ontario Government Policies state:

Policy 2. Surface Water Quality Management Areas with Water Quality Not Meeting the Provincial Water Quality Objectives shall not be degraded further and all practical measures shall be taken to upgrade the water quality to the Objectives.

Groundwater Quality Management. Unregulated Sources of Contamination 4.1.2

There are a number of activities that do not require specific approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Environmental protection Act but have the potential to contribute to groundwater contamination. They include non-point source activities (i.e. crop fertilization, manure application, road deicing), salt storage areas, unlicensed  and closed landfills, leaks, spills and decommissioning clean-up.

The treatment or elimination of pollution from unregulated sources will be required where it is demonstrated that such measures are practicable and necessary to correct use impairment and will prevent further degradation or improve water quality. 

Where such  measures are not practical, the Ministry may require replacement of the affected supplies.

Summary

The present owner of the land is responsible for all past contamination that has occurred on the property. Their report demonstrates and states that some of the groundwater below the proposed site is already contaminated. No additional risk to groundwater is acceptable.  

The property owner is responsible for taking action to improve drinking water OR supply piped water that meets the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives to all down gradient landowners at the property owners expense as suggested in government water policies. 

Considering the Future of 1922-1984 Witmer Road: an application for an aggregate license

I imagine these concerns will go to a different individual to address, please redirect as you see fit; 

1. Loss of Natural Capital

Normal acceptable farming practices are becoming more restrictive but what about the minimum acceptable rules as to extraction of sand and gravel above the water table?  

Does the government have any studies to show that 1.5 meters of sandy gravelly soil will purify the water passing through the soil, even under good farming practices?

2. Wash ponds

What about the open ponds used for gravel washing that are left behind that provide direct connection and contact with the groundwater?

3. Permit to draw water

Who determines if permitting an aggregate industry to draw water will or will not have an impact of private and municipal wells?

4. Asphalt recycling

Who determines the risk of permitting the introduction of foreign recycled materials onto a property in a WHPA and regional recharge area, in close proximity to private well owners? 

5. Proposed rehabilitation back to (designated ‘prime’) farmland

Stating that one will return the worked out gravel pit back to productive farmland in its previous state appears to be an easy approach or attempt to avoid the  tenet of “no loss of prime agricultural land”. How realistic is it to expect that this rehabilitated land with a thin topsoil layer will be able to grow crops with the same yield without using excessive volumes of fertilizer which will just contaminate the groundwater further.  Even just the depth of the proposed hole left behind should result in a lower classification of the potential productivity of this land. Also the area should be viewed in its entirety with reference to the yield of bushels per 100 acres or 160 acres and not simply bushels per acre.  The remaining berms, ring road to access the bottom of the pit all reduce the so called usable acreage from a farming perspective. Will the property owner be able to source the type of fill that meets standards to rehabilitate this property?