Re: Proposed amendments to…

Re: Proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards Under the Aggregate Resources Act, ERO 019-1303

May 4, 2020

Thank you for extending the time limit to address the Proposed Amendments to Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act, February 2020. Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) is a not-for-profit organization in Hastings County. Our group promotes responsible, equitable and sustainable resource use.

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) are no strangers to addressing legislative decisions that may have an environmental impact on our community or have the potential to affect the wellness of residents living in rural settings. On March 2, 2017, CAMQ delivered a submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on Bill 39, Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 (Hansard March 2, 2017). Among other things, the committee was asked:

• For openness and transparency with our ministries
• For better cross-communication between ministries
• That Bill 39, and ultimately all legislation that supports the sustainable use of water, protect rural well users and not just municipal water supplies
• That MNRF consider other ministries’ non-compliance issues when assessing aggregate licences for compliance
• When assessing impacts on groundwater, consider large volume water taking AND residential water needs, coupled with research on climate change. (This includes quarry dewatering which removes groundwater from one location in a municipality, to return it as surface water downstream, in the same watershed. Bulk transfers of water within a watershed can pose a risk to growing rural communities that have no access to municipal water supplies.)

On November 18, 2019, CAMQ addressed the Standing Committee on General Government regarding Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act (Hansard November 18, 2019). Among other things, the committee was asked:

• That ARA licenses be time limited and tied to the Permit to Take Water
• That funding be made available to citizens for expert advice and peer review particularly if the MNRF is referring to OMB (now LPAT) for decision making so ALL voices can be heard
• When assessing cumulative impacts on groundwater, consider large volume water taking AND residential water needs, coupled with research on climate change. This point echoes past recommendations and proposals that came from the Auditor General’s 2004 recommendation to the MOE and is equally relevant to this ministry today when protecting rural water supplies.

Applications and Licensing

We are pleased that the Ontario’s ARA, section 12 (1) (e) now requires the minister/LPAT to consider ‘any possible effects on ground and surface water resources including … drinking water sources.’ While we are encouraged to see that your proposals seek to better clarify how the water table is assessed and documented (section 1.1.1), it concerns us that one year of study may not be adequate to completely account for all of the seasonal water table variations due to climate change.

It also concerns us that the proposed changes to the content of a water report fall short of the criteria needed to assess local demand on an aquifer when developing a water budget. Your document provides added direction for addressing source water protection plans, but fails to add further tools for assessing rural groundwater supplies that fall outside municipal source water protection plans.

To illustrate our concerns, since the initial request for an Official Plan amendment was introduced by a local quarry operator in 2004, our rural municipality has permitted dozens of new homes to be built in the vicinity of a current and proposed quarry operation/expansion. Residents worry that an additional 60 plus acres of quarrying below the water table would have a significant impact on the area’s groundwater supply. This is a community in southeastern Ontario that depends upon one vulnerable aquifer to meet all of its residential and agricultural water needs – it has no access to municipal water supplies. A quarry expansion is a disastrous prospect for farmers whose families have farmed for centuries in this area, and to home owners who have recently built newer homes in good faith. Who is responsible for determining if the continued and combined community, agricultural and industrial demand for water in is sustainable?

At our November 18, 2019 presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government, Mr. Harris, Deputy Minister, MNRF assured us that ministries are working together. Unfortunately, our experience has shown us that information about non-compliances is not always shared between ministries. Please place a time limit on ARA licenses where aggregate extraction falls below the water table and tie aggregate license renewals to the PTTW. Further, we feel that the proposal to remove the need to add conditions relating to other ministries to new aggregate licenses and permits (section 1.2.4) is not precautionary, e.g., PTTW. We have observed too many instances where siloed communications have allowed an unscrupulous operator to continue to pump below the water table for several years without a PTTW.

To be in alignment with ARA 12 (1) (e), it would be more precautionary if the guidelines for water reports (section 1.1.1) better considered the impacts of quarrying on water in both municipal water taking AND on rural groundwater environments. Water budgets should consider: input and output of water through the site; natural demand; existing and planned residential/agricultural demand; and recent impacts of climate change.

Now is the time to act. The current Covid-19 Pandemic has shown us what is most important. Bill 132 aims to make changes that are “Better for People, Smarter for Business.” However, not everything (to use privatized nursing homes as an example) is better for people even though it may be smarter for business. Let us transfer the lessons learned.

Annual Compliance Reporting

To continue on our precautionary note, we urge you to increase ministry oversight for the Compliance Assessment Reporting (Part 3.2) AND proposed site plan amendments (section 3.3.4). Residents in our community find ministry reliance on operators’ self-assessments to be short sighted – providing little protection to those who live close to quarrying operations. Residents feel that increased ministry oversight is a small price to pay when a non-compliant operator is unwilling to abide by the permits and rules set out by MNRF and MECP. It’s our observation that follow-up investigations seem powerless to have an impact on deviant operators.

We all know that aggregate is of vital importance to our economic well-being, and understand that the aggregate industry has been a government priority for years. However, water, health, respect for property, and sustainable growth in rural communities must take precedent. If we can achieve guidelines that allow us to reset the imbalance between the need for aggregate operations, and the needs of citizens and the environment in which all thrive, we may be able to reduce our reliance on agencies such as LPAT to resolve issues. LPAT, and the legal system in general, is far too costly a route for residents to rely upon in order to have their voices heard – particularly when businesses can financially outpower the average citizen. We ask that the Provincial Standards Under the Aggregate Resources Act adopt an approach that can resolve issues without the need for LPAT by respecting the needs of residents. It may well save provincial dollars down the road.

Agriculture

We are pleased that you are proposing that all applications for pits and quarries be required to include an Agricultural Impact Assessment under certain conditions. Unfortunately, section 1.1.4 seems scant on details, and narrow in scope. We feel that the proposed conditions need to be expanded to consider the impacts of quarrying on adjacent prime agricultural lands. While dust mitigation is currently prescribed for category 2 aggregate licenses, and applies to sensitive receptors, local farmers have also found that dust blowing from aggregate operations can adversely impact the health of crops growing on prime agricultural lands. Given the experience of local farmers, our group considers a safe distance between prime agricultural lands and quarrying operations to be a minimum of 1000 metres, and requests that you include language in section 3.1.2 to protect sensitive receptors AND surrounding crops on prime agricultural lands from quarry dust in your provincial standards.

Blasting

We see that section 3.1.3 on blasting proposes to implement measures to prevent fly rock from leaving an aggregate site if a sensitive receptor is located within 500 metres of the boundary of the site. While it is wonderful to see that fly rock is finally making its way to the provincial standards for aggregate, we understand that these operating requirements are to come into effect 18 months after the regulation is approved, allowing existing quarries time to get up to standard. However, our group sees fly rock as an urgent safety issue and feels that the conditions on fly rock must be implemented immediately upon regulatory approval for all new aggregate licenses.

Further to blasting, we draw your attention to the proposal for Blast Design Reports (section 1.1.5). Our group’s experience – particularly those whose homes have suffered damage -- finds that ground vibration and overpressure can have an impact on sensitive receptors well beyond 500 metres. We respectfully request that your requirements for blast design reports be broadened to consider geologic conditions in the surrounding area such as karst, as well as sensitive receptors within 1000 metres of the proposed limit of extraction.

To summarize, CAMQ respectfully requests that the Proposed Amendments to Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act, February 2020 consider:

• Water table assessments for rural communities that have finite water sources. For cumulative impacts on groundwater, consider large volume water taking combined with residential and other water taking needs, research on climate change, etc.

• Incorporating clearer language regarding the proximity of new/expanded quarries in relation to prime agricultural land

• That ARA licenses be time limited and tied to the Permit to Take Water

• Increase ministry involvement for Compliance Reporting and site plan amendments

• Improving cross-communication between ministries (e.g., sharing of non-compliances/investigations between the MNRF and MECP)

• Activate operational requirements for fly rock into all new/expanded licenses immediately

• Provide funding to citizens for expert advice and peer review so that ALL voices can be heard

Again, we thank you for this opportunity for rural citizens to have their voices heard. In times of prosperity, cutting red tape to facilitate business development seems like a great idea. However, if removing red tape threatens the way of life for certain populations or localities, efforts to streamline business can backfire and the most vulnerable bear the brunt.

Sincerely,

Susan Munro,
Chair, CAMQ

Danielle Emon
Executive Member, CAMQ

camq2013@gmail.com
www.citizensagainstmelrosequarry.com