Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Municipal Asset Management Planning Regulation (EBR#013-0551). Conservation Ontario represents Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs). CAs are local, watershed management agencies that deliver services and programs to protect and manage water and other natural resources in Ontario; including the quality and quantity of drinking water at its source and, in many cases, technical advice to municipalities on stormwater management, and support for municipal implementation under the Clean Water Act, 2006.

CAs also support municipalities in the review of their public infrastructure undertakings under master planning processes, the Planning Act and the municipal Class environmental assessment process, and/or for projects requiring a permit under the CA regulation. CAs also advocate for the protection of natural heritage systems in developing and intensifying communities that support traditional forms of infrastructure as the natural “green infrastructure” of a community. In this regard, CAs and municipalities work together to reduce or eliminate risk to public infrastructure and enhance its resilience to the impacts of urbanization and the compounding effects of climate change. Overall, CAs provide technical support to our member municipalities striving to meet the challenge of limited capacity and resources that drive the processes and finances to maintain, repair and replace assets.

The stated purpose of the proposed regulation is to introduce new requirements for municipalities to provide greater standardization and consistency to municipal asset management planning, while continuing to provide appropriate flexibility for municipalities to plan according to their own unique circumstances. This approach is generally supported recognizing that implementation by municipalities needs to be adequately supported.

1. Clean Water Act Comments

There is a notable absence of the existing provincially legislated Clean Water Act (2006) process which also supports asset management. The following are comments to address this.

A) Connecting the dots: Drinking Water Quality Management Standard, Drinking Water Source Protection, and Municipal Asset Management

It is recognized that municipalities typically have a number of initiatives to monitor the levels of service provided by their infrastructure. These initiatives include meeting regulatory requirements, national benchmarking initiatives, standard operating procedures, best practice reviews and condition assessments. The full suite of these tools are utilized in municipal asset management.

One of the level of service initiatives relevant to this discussion is the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. To conform to the quality management system municipalities must, amongst other actions, undertake a hazard risk assessment for drinking water sources, system facilities and infrastructure. The raw water source must be characterized for general characteristics, and for the impacts of potential events such as toxic spills, changes of seasons, storms, spring run-off, algae blooms, lake turnover, etc. Key operational challenges and threats should also be identified. Infrastructure must be assessed for maintenance, renewal and repair. These analyses form part of municipal asset management planning, where drinking water systems are one of the several infrastructure components managed.

Under Clean Water Act, 2006, local source protection plans were developed in Ontario by multi-stakeholder committees supported by conservation authorities and other stakeholders. These local plans contain science-based assessment reports which also include comprehensive hazard risk assessments of threats posed to municipal drinking water sources within designated vulnerable areas around the drinking water sources. These risk assessments are on a watershed basis and therefore complementary to that of the DWQMS in protecting drinking water sources, systems and infrastructure.

The asset management decision making process considers risks to drinking water systems; and assets are managed to the expected level of service. As described in the Province of Ontario guidance document on statutory standard of care under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, information developed under the Clean Water Act should be included into risk assessment. The guidance states that conducting a risk assessment is a key component of a drinking water system operational plan. By performing a risk assessment, the system operating authority will assess:

•existing or potential hazardous events and resulting impacts to drinking water systems – including the detailed, science-based risk assessments of municipal drinking water sources within source protection areas by local source protection authorities (includes all conservation authorities) as documented in local assessment reports;

•the necessary measures or response measures for each hazardous event

- these measures may already be in place through such barriers as treatment processes and source protection plans which contain enabling policies that address the hazard risks identified in assessment reports.

•ranking of each event according to its likelihood of occurring, and the consequences or severity of the results.

This approach supports a seamless multi-barrier safety net for Ontarians to access clean, safe drinking water, per Justice O’Conner’s recommendations following the Walkerton water contamination incident in Ontario.

B) Strategic Asset Management Policy

The proposed regulation would require that municipalities prepare a strategic asset management policy that includes municipal goals, plans and policies (e.g. official plans), including considerations for climate change, lifecycle management and financial needs, with a review period of five years. This approach is generally supported and the relevant elements that should be considered for municipal drinking water infrastructure, allowing for local considerations and without being too prescriptive, are described below:

 

•Applicable existing processes that support municipal asset management planning should be acknowledged. These include but are not limited to: oExisting level of service initiatives. Examples: Minimum Maintenance Standards, DWQMS. oDemand and growth planning documents. Examples: water, wastewater, stormwater management plans, transportation plans, official plans, local source protection plans including the science-based assessment reports.

•It is important to include a brief description of the Clean Water Act, source protection plans and assessment reports because: oMunicipal Official Plans are required by the Clean Water Act to conform to local source protection plan policies by including policies in the Official Plans and zoning by-laws to prevent future risks to municipal water sources. Municipalities have a strong, ongoing role in municipal drinking water source protection planning under the Clean Water Act. They are the implementers of about 60% of all mandatory policies in local source protection plans across Ontario. oThe Provincial Policy Statement Section 2.2.1 clearly states that planning authorities shall protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas for drinking water sources. oAs mentioned above, per the Province of Ontario guidance on statutory standard of care under DWQMS, hazard risk assessment information from Clean Water Act assessment reports should be included in the asset management planning process. Local source protection plans contain policies that help identify and mitigate risks to drinking water sources which in turn contributes to the overall planning process for improvement of infrastructure assets. The protection of sources of drinking water on an integrated watershed management basis per the Clean Water Act contributes to the overall management of public potable municipal drinking water supplies.

C) Municipal Asset Management Plans

Per the proposed regulation, municipalities must prepare asset management plans in three phases covering all infrastructure assets by Jan. 1, 2022. The implementation of mandatory Clean Water Act source protection plan policies contribute to the protection of municipal drinking water sources, operations and planning of infrastructure assets. The following source protection planning aspects can be considered in municipal asset management plans:

 

•Proposed Level of Service tables: These are described as including community levels of service (qualitative descriptions, images, or maps that describe end-user experience), and technical levels of service (metrics that describe what the municipality provides). oUnder Water Assets, it is recommended that the community levels of service can include drinking water vulnerable area mapping as described in the table below.. oUnder Water Assets, it is recommended that the corresponding technical levels of service can include two metrics: (1) a metric for risk/hazard assessment (from assessment reports) which influences the determination of consequence of failure; (2) a metric denoting the mitigation of these risks to the sources of public potable municipal water supply. Local source protection plan policies mitigate risks through various mechanisms including land use planning, risk management plans, prohibition, municipal emergency response plan updates, and salt management plan updates. Metrics that show progress by source protection plan implementers are available with local conservation authorities who utilize these metrics in related annual progress reporting. oUnder Wastewater Assets and Stormwater Assets, for the service attribute of: Reliability, the community level of service can describe how municipal infrastructure used to carry out activities such as wastewater and stormwater convenyance are included in the source protection planning process. The corresponding technical levels of service can include a metric reporting on the number of Environmental Compliance Approvals conforming to local source protection plan policies to protect drinking water. oUnder Stormwater Assets, for the service attribute of: Reliability, the community level of service can describe how municipal infrastructure are included in the source protection planning process. The corresponding technical levels of service can include a metric reporting on the number of development applications conforming to local source protection plan policies requiring stormwater management practices such as low impact development.

Water Assets Service attributeApplicable FIR categoriesCommunity level of serviceTechnical levels of service Scope

•Water treatment

•Water storage

•Water transmissionDrinking water vulnerable area mapping:

•Intake protection zones (IPZs)

•Wellhead protection areas (WHPAs)

•Highly vulnerable aquifers (HVAs)

•Significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) Including:

•Water quality issue contributing areas

•Water quantity stressed areas.(1) Metric for risk/hazard assessment (from Clean Water Act assessment reports) which influences the determination of consequence of failure. Example: Vulnerability score ranked ‘HIGH’ for an IPZ. (2) Metric denoting the mitigation of these risks to the sources of public potable municipal water supply. Example: % properties being managed through risk management plans, land use planning and prescribed instruments per local source protection plans.

 

•Inventory analysis: Under the Clean Water Act, activities such as stormwater management, wastewater treatment, combined sewer overflow, road salt storage, etc. (which utilize municipal infrastructure assets) can be identified as significant drinking water threat activities under specific circumstances. These details are identified in local science-based assessment reports developed under the Clean Water Act. Mandatory local source protection plan policies apply to all identified significant threat activities, to mitigate the risks. oMost source protection plan policies manage risks posed by threat activities. For example, for assets such as treatment plants and sewer mains that are identified as significant level threats, conditions in applicable prescribed instruments are reviewed and possibly amended; similarly road salt storage structural features may be reviewed to ensure the management of runoff. There are limited instances where expansions and/or new infrastructure could be prohibited. oIt is recommended that the inventory analysis for municipal asset management plans clearly identify (a) those municipal infrastructure assets that are used for activities deemed to be significant level risks to drinking water sources under the Clean Water Act, and (b) the applicable local source protection plan policies, noting the policy approach (‘manage’ or ‘prohibit’). This information will assist the infrastructure needs assessment including consequence of failure analysis where land use and environmentally sensitive areas are factors typically examined. Clean Water Act vulnerable area mapping are particularly relevant to this analysis.

 

•Climate change considerations: water budget studies conducted under the Clean Water Act have determined areas of water quantity stress for municipal drinking water systems. The Ontario Low Water Response program also indicates watershed levels of stress due to low water conditions. The Province of Ontario will be utilizing these two programs for Permit to Take Water determinations related to groundwater takings for bottled water. It is recommended to explore the utility of these existing programs to support climate change considerations in asset management planning.

D) Provincial Policy Alignment

The Province has acknowledged the linkages to other legislation. It is recommended that, due to the above reasons, the linkage to the Clean Water Act, 2006 also be included.

2. Stormwater Management Comments The Province is commended for including stormwater assets. It is noted that the proposed Level of Service measure for stormwater assets (i.e. urban and rural storm sewer systems) includes metrics related to protection from flooding and this is supported. However, some jurisdictions may have different storm events than the 100-year and 5-year storms that are applied to their watersheds and it is suggested that the tables refer to “Regulatory Storm as per the local Conservation Authority”, if one is present. As well, the table is missing stormwater treatment (e.g. stormwater management ponds, low impact development) and measures for water quality and erosion treatment. For example, maintenance of stormwater management ponds is critical to their proper functioning to meet the water quality technical levels of service. An approach to the inclusion of this important component of stormwater assets into municipal asset management plans is proposed in the table below and would provide better assurance that the levels of service will be managed and met.

Stormwater Assets Service attributeApplicable FIR categoriesCommunity level of serviceTechnical levels of service ReliabilityStormwater Treatment Map(s) and/or descriptions of which areas of the community or user groups are providing water quality and erosion treatment (e.g. stormwater ponds, LID).% of municipality with water quality and erosion treatment per the 2003 Stormwater Management Guidelines (as amended)

In general, the Levels of Service tables are missing other criteria relevant to the service and function of infrastructure, especially considering infrastructure challenges in highly urbanized environments, e.g., where historical development saw much of a City’s water and sewer pipes sited directly adjacent to or within valley and stream corridors; similarly, roads located too close to valley slopes, as well as undersized culverts and bridges are also at risk from streambank erosion and/or unstable slopes, requiring ongoing repair or replacement. Therefore, CO requests that the Levels of Service Tables be “living documents” that can be amended for additional metrics tailored to the challenges to level of service of each municipality.

3.Green Infrastructure Comments

Finally, Conservation Ontario is a member of the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition (GIOC) and strongly supports the inclusion of green infrastructure in the definition of Infrastructure Assets and in the Lifecycle Management Strategy. The inclusion is appreciated and it should be clarified that it is defined as per the Provincial Policy Statement (2014):

Green infrastructure: means natural and humanmade elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces, and green roofs.

Natural capital (e.g. wetlands and forests) represent assets that provide a range of important civic functions (e.g. flood mitigation) and that can be more resilient to climate change, yet they are currently not managed as municipal assets. Several municipalities in Ontario are investigating ways in which these natural assets can be considered within their municipal infrastructure asset management processes and financial statements; making them part of their sustainable service delivery program. While it is recognized that current public sector accounting standards are lacking in their ability to formally do so, the Province is encouraged to identify this gap, and further to work with provincial stakeholders (e.g. conservation authorities, Natural Capital Lab www.naturalcapitallab.com, Green Infrastructure Ontario www.greeninfrastructureontatio.org , and others) to advance future improvements to the provincial asset management system. “Humanmade” or built elements of green infrastructure include low impact development (LID) measures for stormwater management that contribute to the MOECC’s criteria for water quantity, quality, erosion and water balance. The Provincial Policy Statement and the recently amended Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe promote and/or require green infrastructure and LIDs as essential to incorporating in new and redeveloping communities for enhancing resilience to climate change. Given the obligation of municipalities to employ LIDs, it is appropriate that green infrastructure is supported as an integral part of asset management planning.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Proposed Municipal Asset Management Planning Regulation.

[Original Comment ID: 210298]