I feel very strongly that…

Numéro du REO

019-6853

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

93627

Commentaire fait au nom

Individual

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses

Commentaire

I feel very strongly that study MUST be done to fully understand the impact of water taking on each individual site of any project in Ontario which could affect water usage, with or without ground water- taking permits.

Public consultation and input MUST continue to be part of the granting of water taking permits

All the Ontario Conservation Authorities MUST be restored as stakeholders in the consideration and granting of permissions for water taking in any area. These authorities have been functioning so well in Ontario and should not be diminished in their actions, responsibilities, and powers, nor their on-going partnerships as local stakeholders be eliminated or even reduced.

Here are my fuller concerns for the proposed rules changes:

▪ Less frequent inspections - While the Ministries would maintain the authority to “inspect facilities” and “ensure compliance with regulatory requirements”, we currently see dramatically reduced levels of staffing in the MNRF and MECP; we observe that already existing requirements for monitoring pit operations and inspecting sites are not being fulfilled; shortening the timeline between the issuance of a permit and beginning site work would put even greater pressure on inspectors. We also believe similar changes would happen across nuclear facilities, nuclear waste management oversight, electricity production and general construction, land and water conservation projects, and we disagree fully with this decreased inspections approach.

▪ Inappropriate criteria - A proposed aggregate project would be required to meet a minimal set of criteria, which are geared for the flat agricultural land of southern Ontario; criteria have not been developed to not address the environmentally complex areas of waterways, forests and wetlands of Lanark Highlands, and similar areas.

▪ Industry bias - Applications are supported, if at all, only with technical reports by a “qualified person”, hired by the proponent to provide the desired information for approval.

▪ No public input - With the period for public consultation dropped from the application process, the “qualified person’s” assessment would not be subject to scrutiny by landowners, interested citizens, or local levels of government. This is like hiring a fox to guard a henhouse! Phony in that it appears to be securing an expert opinion, but in fact would be a 'purchased' biased opinion that is the one sought by the applicant.

▪ Unlimited water taking - Ontario proposes removing the current limit of 400,000 litres of groundwater per day. DO NOT REMOVE THIS LIMIT! Why would you not want to protect our precious groundwater here in Ontario, where we are blessed, but MUST CONTINUE TO PROTECT OUR GROUNDWATER SOURCES!! DO NOT REMOVE THIS LIMIT.

▪ Sidelining Conservation Authorities - In this situation where assessment and oversight are needed more than ever, the Conservation Authorities’ staff at the local level continue to be prohibited from any oversight of water resources and wetlands impacted by the aggregate extraction industry.

▪ Rushed process - The shortcuts proposed do not offer time for people to fully investigate an application, limiting the rights of citizens. The existing review process for an application can last for years; local citizens, indigenous people, ministries and lower tier levels of government can scrutinize proposals and offer input. THIS WOULD NO LONGER HAPPEN.

Please email us with your comments about each of our concerns.