I strongly oppose ERO #025…

I strongly oppose ERO #025-0730, “Proposed changes to provide flexibility for water taking activities.” This proposed regulatory amendment represents a sweeping erosion of Ontario’s environmental protections. It undermines public oversight, violates Indigenous rights, and accelerates the privatization and exploitation of our shared water systems. It is now clear that this proposal would apply to all types of water-taking permits — not just water bottling, but also aggregate operations, mining, exploration, industrial uses, and other commercial extractions. Further, the regulation is designed to apply retroactively, and may even include expired permits, raising serious questions about accountability, regulatory integrity, and the potential for de facto perpetual water-taking rights.
The scope and impact of this proposal cannot be overstated. It is a direct attack on water justice in Ontario, the specifics of which I share below.

1. Water-Taking Permits Must Not Be Treated as Transferable Assets
The requirement that a new owner must apply for a new Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is essential for maintaining environmental integrity, community protections, and public trust. Ontario’s existing policy rightly cancels a permit upon transfer of ownership, triggering a new application process that ensures:
• The intended use of the water is reviewed;
• Impacts on ecosystems, wetlands, and drinking water supplies are considered;
• The legitimacy and track record of the new operator is considered;
• The opportunity for public engagement and transparency.
These procedural safeguards exist for good reason. Removing them amounts to regulatory backsliding and opens the door to speculative land purchases for the purpose of water exploitation.

2. Technical Grounds for Requiring a New Application Upon Ownership Change
Permits to Take Water are not just about the site — they are about the entity operating it. When ownership changes, so too may:
• The operator’s environmental record and legal liabilities;
• The facility’s water usage patterns, processing methods, or technologies;
• The relevant hydrogeological data and scientific understanding of the sustainability of watertaking, which evolve over time.
Granting automatic or retroactive transfers degrades regulatory standards, creates loopholes, and makes proper monitoring functionally impossible. This is especially dangerous in a time of escalating ecological instability.

3. Indigenous Rights and Duty to Consult: Ontario is in Breach
Under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Ontario has a legal obligation to consult Indigenous Nations where their rights may be impacted — especially when decisions concern land and water that fall under Indigenous legal jurisdiction.
The proposed changes would bypass consultation requirements by allowing ownership-based permit transfers without a new application process. This erasure of the duty to consult is not only a breach of legal obligations, but also a continuation of colonial patterns of dispossession and exploitation.
Ontario’s own Guidelines for Ministries on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples enshrine this duty. Gutting the permitting process in this way is a direct violation of that framework.

4. Climate Chaos and Groundwater Security
In an era of climate instability, Ontario must be strengthening, not weakening, its groundwater protections. Aquifers are finite, vulnerable to over-extraction, and often take thousands of years to replenish.
Automatic or unreviewed permit transfers increase the risk of:
• Unsustainable withdrawals;
• Degradation of wetlands and freshwater ecosystems;
• Reduced agricultural resilience and drinking water availability.
This is a national water security issue. If permits are allowed to operate with no scrutiny, Canada’s freshwater resources could become locked into trade obligations under agreements like NAFTA/USMCA, restricting future governments’ ability to protect or reclaim control over water.

5. Public Interest and Moral Responsibility
Permitting systems must operate in the public interest, not for the convenience of private corporations. This proposal opens the door to:
• Speculative buying of land for access to water;
• Lack of transparency about water users and their activities;
• Regulatory frameworks that treat water as a privatized commodity, rather than a public trust.
This shift is not morally neutral. It reflects a deliberate prioritization of corporate convenience over ecological health, intergenerational equity, and democratic governance of water.

6. Overwhelming Public Opposition and Democratic Will
Water-taking decisions in Ontario have consistently drawn tens of thousands of public comments — the vast majority in opposition. Across the political spectrum, Ontarians have called for:
• Stronger oversight of large-volume water use;
• Phasing out water takings that serve private profit over public good;
• Greater protections for groundwater in the face of ecological uncertainty;
• Consideration of cumulative impacts & place-based water availability in permitting.
The proposed regulatory change ignores this democratic will. It is not a minor adjustment - it is a fundamental restructuring of water governance that Ontario residents did not ask for and do not support.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations
This proposal paves the way for unchecked water extraction by allowing permits to be transferred without scrutiny, consultation, or environmental review. It could lead to a system of perpetual permitting that sidesteps accountability and accelerates ecological harm.
I respectfully urge the Ministry to:
• Reject the proposed changes to PTTW regulations;
• Reaffirm that all new owners must apply for a new permit through a public, scientific, and Indigenous-informed review process;
• Uphold the duty to consult Indigenous Nations as required by provincial and constitutional law;
• Treat water as a public trust, not a private asset.
This is not a technical tweak — it is a major decision about the kind of Ontario we want to live in. Let it be one that protects water for people, for ecosystems, and for generations to come.
I believe these proposed changes to water taking activities must be rejected!