1. Water Taking Permits Must…

1. Water Taking Permits Must Not Be Treated as Transferable Assets
The current requirement that new owners must apply for a new Permit to Take Water (PTTW) is essential to maintaining public trust and environmental integrity.

According to Ontario's own Guide to Permit to Take Water Application Form, the Ministry is required to cancel a permit held by a previous owner upon the transfer of property ownership, and the new owner must apply anew. This process ensures proper review of:

The purpose of the water taking;
Potential impacts on local hydrology, wetlands, ecosystems, and drinking water supplies;
Public engagement and transparency;
Potential monopoly or near-monopoly in water bottling permits- like Ice River potentially controlling 85-99% of Ontario's bottled water takings.
The permit held at 101 Brock Rd S, Puslinch, Ontario (Aberfoyle site) is a relevant and urgent case in point. As per the permit conditions:

Clause 1.4: "This permit is not transferable."
Clause 1.7: "A change in ownership of the property will cause the permit to be cancelled."
These clauses are legally binding and consistent with provincial policy. To alter this through regulation would amount to regulatory backsliding, stripping away community protections in favour of corporate expediency.

2. Technical Grounds for Requiring a New Application Upon Ownership Change
Permits to Take Water must be tied not just to the activity, but to the entity responsible. Ownership brings significant variables that can affect the operation:

The new operator's track record, financial and environmental liabilities.
Potential modifications to the facility, usage volume, or processing that are not captured under the original permit.
Changing hydrological conditions or updated scientific data that must inform current permitting decisions.
Water is a shared public resource and must be managed with the highest standards of precaution and accountability. Automatic permit transfers degrade this standard and open the door to corporate exploitation.

3. Indigenous Rights and Duty to Consult: Ontario is in Breach
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) has issued cease-and-desist orders against water bottling operations in 2021 and again in 2023, specifically referencing the unlawful use of water from the Aberfoyle area.

The HCCC asserts that:

They have not been consulted as required under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
They retain inherent and treaty rights to the lands and waters in question;
The water-taking activities are occurring on unceded Haudenosaunee territory within the Nanfan treaty.
In Ontario, the provincial duty to consult is further enshrined in policy through the Ontario Government's Guidelines for Ministries on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples. The proposed regulatory change could unlawfully bypass this duty by removing the opportunity for new consultation each time a permit changes hands.

Ignoring Indigenous legal orders while simultaneously proposing regulatory changes that make it easier for corporations to extract water from contested lands is colonial and unethical.

4. Climate Chaos and Groundwater Security
In the context of accelerating climate change, the proposed changes to water-taking regulation are reckless and irresponsible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned of worsening drought conditions and freshwater insecurity worldwide. Local aquifers are not infinite resources—they are vulnerable and increasingly at risk.

Ontario's groundwater systems take thousands of years to replenish. Large-volume water takings, especially for non-essential, profit-driven uses like bottling for export, threaten:

Future drinking water supplies;
Ecosystem health and wetland viability;
Agricultural resilience.
Further, the threat of foreign interests, particularly from U.S.-based corporations or subsidiaries, poses a national water security issue. Canada's freshwater cannot be commodified without risking broader trade obligations under instruments like NAFTA/USMCA, which could prevent future governments from restricting exports. This is not mere speculation—it is a well-documented trade law risk.

5. Public Interest and Moral Responsibility
The Ford government has repeatedly sided with commercial water interests over the public good, eroding Ontario's once-principled water governance framework. Allowing existing permits to persist automatically upon sale of land opens the door for:

Speculative purchasing of land for access to water;
Lack of transparency about who is extracting groundwater and for what purpose;
A precedent that treats water as private property rather than a commons.
Water belongs to all people, not to corporations that bottle it and sell it back to us at 3,000% markup while producing unnecessary plastic pollution.

6. Overwhelming Public Opposition and Democratic Will
Permits for water bottling in Ontario, and particularly at the Aberfoyle and Hillsburgh sites, have been met with massive public resistance:

In 2020, over 32,000 public comments were submitted to the Environmental Registry in response to BlueTriton's water-taking applications. The vast majority were opposed.
A similar volume of public objections (over 25,000 comments) were registered during Nestlé's permit renewals in 2017.
Polling consistently shows that a majority of Ontarians across party lines believe that permits for water bottling should be phased out entirely.
These numbers reflect a deep and growing consensus that water bottling is inconsistent with public values, sustainability, and responsible governance.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations
I respectfully request that the Ministry:

Reject the proposed changes that would allow PTTWs to be transferred between owners without a new application.
Reaffirm the existing policy that all new owners must apply for a new permit, subject to full environmental review and public notice.
Uphold the duty to consult in all water-taking decisions, particularly in areas where Indigenous Nations have raised legal and cultural objections.
Recognize water as a public trust, not a privatized asset.
This is not just a bureaucratic issue. This is about what kind of province we want to be: one that sells off our future for short-term gain, or one that protects our most vital shared resource for generations to come.

Respectfully submitted