February 20, 2018…

February 20, 2018

Jennifer Moulton

Senior Drinking Water Program Advisor

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Policy and Program Division

Source Protection Programs Branch

40 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 14

Toronto ON M4V 1M2

Re: Comments on Establishment of a regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (EBR Registry Number: 013-1840)

Dear Ms. Moulton,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. The following specific comments are a compilation of comments from Quinte Source Protection staff, Source Protection Committee (SPC) members, and the SPC Chair.

EBR Posting 013-1840 Question 1: In your opinion, is the proposed regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act for municipal drinking water systems in source protection areas necessary to ensure source protection work is completed prior to bringing new or expanded drinking water systems online?

Response 1:

•Quinte’s opinion is that DWSP work, including the delineation of vulnerable areas, is required prior to bringing a new or expanded drinking water system online. This ensures the work is completed rather than making it optional and ensures that DWSP is not an afterthought. If this work is not completed prior to the system coming online, it allows DWSP to become an afterthought, exactly what SPAs/SPRs have been working diligently against.

EBR Posting 013-1840 Question 2: What advantages are there for municipalities and system owners with the proposal to require source protection zones to be delineated around new wells or intakes before a drinking water works permit is issued? Is there anything that the ministry should consider including in the regulation that would assist municipalities?

Response 2:

•As mentioned previously, the proposed requirement of source protection zones to be delineated around new wells or intakes before a drinking water works permit is issued ensures the work is completed rather than making it optional.

• The maintenance and update of existing groundwater models through provision of provincial funding and guidance is required in order to make the process efficient, in particular where the new system location is close to the old location. The capacity to update of the groundwater model rather than building a new model from scratch, where applicable is important to ensure cost effective delineations of vulnerable areas in more rural municipalities challenged with funding. •One concern Quinte has, that should also be further considered by MOECC is in regards to groundwater model ownership, and the ability to re-run the model to justify the delineation of vulnerable areas. The concern stems both from a liability/justification perspective but also for efficiency purposes to ensure the tax payer does not pay twice for a groundwater model established for a particular system, community or jurisdiction.

EBR Posting 013-1840 Question 3: Is there anything else that you wish the Ministry to consider with respect to the proposed regulation outlined in this posting?

Response 3:

•A clear definition of the “certain work” should be included in the regulations or supporting documents. The EBR Posting states: “The new regulation would require that certain work necessary under the Clean Water Act be complete, and be endorsed by municipal council”. If ‘certain work' refers to Vulnerable Area delineations and identification whether existing policies are sufficient or not, clarification is required as to whether it is the municipality who is to perform the work. This raises another question: If the municipality is responsible for determining whether existing policies are sufficient, will there be guidance to assist them with this determination? Municipalities within the Quinte Region relied heavily on the SPA for this initial work and do not have the staffing expertise to make these determinations.

•It would be helpful for the regulation or supporting documents to include a description of the body responsible for the technical work associated with Clean Water Act, 2006.

•Ensuring where the CWA requirements fit into the process (MEA Class EA) – needs to be clearly articulated in both regulation and supporting guidance materials.

•This proposed requirement will have significant financial impacts on small and rural municipalities, in particular in Eastern Ontario where they have historically relied on provincial funds for compliance with the Clean Water Act, 2006. Quinte’s small and rural municipalities do not have funding to outsource additional work, nor staffing to complete this work ‘in house’. The infrastructure funding framework should be updated to include source water protection.

Thank you again, for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to Establishment of a regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (EBR Registry Number: 013-1840). If you have any questions or concerns on these comments please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or email address provided below.

Sincerely,

Amy Dickens

Program Coordinator

Quinte Source Protection Region

613-968-3434 ext. 132

adickens@quinteconservation.ca

[Original Comment ID: 212776]